Preamble

The House met at a Quarter before Three of the Clock, Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair.

PRIVATE BUSINESS.

Central London and Metropolitan District Railway Companies (Works) Bill,

Read the Third time, and passed.

Rugby Gas Bill [Lords],

As amended, considered; to be read the Third time.

ALIENS (NATURALISATION).

"Address for Return showing (a) Particulars of all Aliens to whom Certificates of Naturalisation have been issued and whose Oaths of Allegiance have, during the year ended the 31st day of December, 1919, been registered at the Home Office; (b) Information as to any Aliens who have during the same period obtained Acts of Naturalisation from the Legislature; and (c) Particulars of cases in which Certificates of Naturalisation have been revoked within the same period (in continuation of Parliamentary Paper, No. 74, of Session 1919)."—[Major Baird.]

Oral Answers to Questions — INDIA.

BRITISH CAVALRY.

Major WHELER: 1.
asked the Secretary of State for India whether the Fitzwigram Quarters, at Chambratta and Ranikhet (two barracks, each for 10 families), at each station are being used for wives and families of British cavalry?

The SECRETARY of STATE for INDIA (Mr. Montagu): I have no information on the subject, but I will inquire.

Major WHELER: 7.
asked the Secretary of State for India whether the
quartermasters and riding masters of British cavalry in India have had their pay increased in accordance with home rates; and, if not, when this will be done?

Mr. MONTAGU: Revised rates of pay for British quartermasters and riding masters serving in India were announced in an Army Instruction published in India on 23rd March last.

RAWALPINDI RIOTS.

Sir J. D. REES: 3.
asked the Secretary of State for India whether inquiry has been made into the mysterious circumstances in which three religious mendicants were recently murdered at Rawal-pindi; and, if so, with what results?

Mr. MONTAGU: I have no information in the matter beyond what has appeared in the Press, but have inquired.

EMPIRE FISCAL PREFERENCE.

Sir J. D. REES: 4.
asked the Secretary of State for India whether he will communicate to the House the result of the deliberations of the committee appointed by the Imperial Legislative Council to consider whether fiscal preference should be given to goods of Empire origin?

Mr. MONTAGU: The Committee, I understand, did not come to any definite conclusion, but recommended that a Commission should be appointed to consider the whole question of the future fiscal policy of India. This recommendation is now, I believe, being considered by the Government of India.

INTERNED GERMANS.

Colonel YATE: 5.
asked the Secretary of State for India how many Germans interned in India during the War have been exempted from repatriation; whether in any case this exemption has been granted against the views of the local government; and, if so, whether the reasons for the exemption have been published?

Mr. MONTAGU: The number of Germans in India exempted from repatriation is 62, including women and children, but excluding a few persons temporarily exempted and religious sisters, of whom a limited number may still be eligible for exemption.
As regards the remainder of the question, I have not the material for an answer, but will inquire.

INDIAN ARMY (OFFICERS' DEPENDANTS' PENSIONS).

Colonel YATE: 6.
asked the Secretary of State for India if he can now state what increase is to be made in the pensions of the widows, children, and dependants of deceased officers of the Indian Army, the Indian Medical Service, and the Royal Indian Marine?

Mr. MONTAGU: I am still awaiting the views of the Government of India. I have again impressed on them that the matter is very urgent.

KUT OFFICER PRISONERS (COMPENSATION).

Captain LOSEBY: 8.
asked the Secretary of State for India whether his attention has been called to the expenses incurred during their captivity in Turkey by officers of the Indian Army taken prisoner at Kut and elsewhere; what sum, if any, was fixed by him and approved by the Treasury as fair and reasonable compensation; and whether this sum has since been reduced by the action of the War Office?

Mr. MONTAGU: The answer to the first part of my hon. and gallant Friend's question is in the affirmative. No sum was fixed by myself as compensation, but the War Office (on whose funds the charges fall), after consultation with the India Office, obtained the agreement of the Treasury to the payment of compensation within certain maxima rates to all British officers, whether of the British or Indian Service, who were prisoners of war in Turkey. The War Office decided to pay British Service officers a fixed percentage of the maximum without further inquiry, and authorised the India Office to do the same in the case of Indian Army officers. Further payments will be made in due course if investigation shows them to be justified.

TRANSFERRED MEN (PAY SHEETS).

Mr. PALMER: 9.
asked the Secretary of State for India who is responsible for the delay in despatching the pay-sheets of men transferred from India to Great Britain; is there any reason why such sheets should be months behind, seeing that the delay causes serious financial
embarrassment to our soldiers and ex-soldiers; if he is aware that numerous and serious complaints have passed from the War Office to the India Office; and is the difficulty due to the fact that the bulk of this work in the Indian pay offices is in the hands of native clerks?

Mr. MONTAGU: The resources of the Indian Military Accounts Department have been severely strained in dealing with the very heavy task of preparing and sending home the pay documents of British troops returning from India and Mesopotamia for demobilisation. The bulk of the work is, however, now completed. The Government of India were extremely anxious to obtain the services of additional staff from the Army Pay Corps for this work, but the War Office was unable to spare any personnel.

AFRIDI OUTRAGE (CAPTURE OF OFFICER'S WIFE).

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: 10.
asked the Secretary of State for India whether he has any further information as to the capture of an English officer's wife by Afridis?

Mr. MONTAGU: The reports received from the Government of India do not enable me to supplement what has appeared in the newspapers on this subject. I am telegraphing for further information.

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: Will the right hon. Gentleman also telegraph to ascertain what steps are being taken? Is not this the first case in history of an Englishwoman being carried off by Afridis?

Mr. MONTAGU: The only point on which I am doubtful is whether she is an Englishwoman. Of course that is not particularly relevant. But I am inquiring as suggested.

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: I can give the name.

Mr. MONTAGU: Yes, but still I am not sure.

Sir J. D. REES: Have not telegrams been published to the effect that she has been recovered?

Mr. MONTAGU: Yes, she has been rescued but that does not make the offence any less serious.

CIVIL SERVICE AND ARMY (PENSIONS AND ANNUITIES).

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: 11.
asked the Secretary of State for India, whether the pensions of members of the Indian Civil Service and officers of the Indian Army are guaranteed by the British Government.

Mr. MONTAGU: I would refer the hon. Baronet to Section 36 (3) of the Government of India Act of last year. The pensions and annuities of both the services to which the hon. Baronet refers have been fixed by despatch, regulation or rule. They have not been and they are not threatened. They cannot be altered by any authority in India, and whatever may be forthcoming in the future, I am certain that Parliament can be trusted to take every step necessary to ensure the fulfilment of the conditions of service fixed on its behalf by the Secretary of State in Council.

Oral Answers to Questions — RUSSIA.

NAVAL OPERATIONS IN SOUTH RUSSIA.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: 12.
asked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether any of His Majesty's ships and aircraft have been in action against towns and villages in the south of Russia during the last two months or with Russian forces; if so, what were the circumstances; and whether there have been any casualties or damage to material during the operations.

The FIRST LORD of the ADMIRALTY (Mr. Long): On 10th March, with a view to delaying the advance on Novorossisk, His Majesty's Ship "Sikh" supported a Russian volunteer army expedition against a Green encampment about four miles west of Novorossisk with 4-inch gunfire. The volunteer army attack did not develop. No houses or villages were fired at.
During the evacuation of the British military mission from Novorossisk on 26th March, His Majesty's ships " Emperor of India " and " Calypso " fired a few rounds in the neighbourhood of Borisovka which had the effect of preventing an expected Bolshevik attack from developing.
On the morning of 27th March, as His Majesty's Ship "Emperor of India" was
leaving Novorossisk, several shrapnel burst near the ship. Fire was not returned.
On 16th April, His Majesty's Ship "Steadfast" fired on the Bolsheviks advancing south along the coast road from Tuapse. A Red battery fired on the ship.
There have been no casualties— and no damage has been reported

Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: Are His Majesty's ships supporting General Wrangel in his attacks in the Crimea?

Mr. LONG: I do not think my hon. and gallant Friend is justified in describing General Wrangel's action as attacks. He is holding the Crimea in order that the refugees there may be protected and saved. His Majesty's ships have orders to support General Wrangel in what is considered as nothing more nor less than a humane act.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Has the. right hon. Gentleman seen recent Reuter cables in the papers to the effect that Wrangel's forces have been attacking and hope to advance out of the Crimea? Are our ships to be used for this purpose while we are opening up negotiations with the Soviet Government?

Mr. LONG: It is quite obvious, surely, to my hon. and gallant Friend that if this information derived from Reuter's telegrams—which I have not seen—is correct, His Majesty's ships are not called upon to take any part in a campaign which apparently, if he is rightly informed, intends to proceed inland. That is a campaign in which the ships could take no part. But I have had no such information, and I am very doubtful whether it is correct.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: Has not the British Government approached the Soviet Government with a view to helping these refugees in the Crimea and making peace with them? Are we to see negotiations carried on for peace, and at the same time be bombarding the Bolsheviks in their works and on their roads?

Mr. LONG: The description given by the hon. and gallant Member is quite incorrect. As to any negotiations, it is obvious that any question of that kind must be addressed to the head of the
Government in his House, and not to me. That is not part of the duty of the Admiralty. When he suggests that our action in supporting General Wrangel in preventing an advance along the coast to Batoum is inconsistent with our other action, he appears to indicate, in the first place, that we are to desert the refugees in the Crimea and leave them to their fate, and, in the second place, that we are not to pursue the policy deliberately marked out, namely, to defend Batoum, which is occupied by British forces.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: Surely the right hon. Gentleman sees the distinction between protecting people in the Crimea and definitely attacking Bolsheviks between Goritza and Atom? If we are to protect the refugees—

Mr. SPEAKER: That appears to be an argumentative statement.

GENERAL DENIKIN.

Mr. LAWSON: 57.
asked whether General Denikin or any other Russian nationals are being wholly or partly maintained in this country or elsewhere at the expense of the British public; and, if so, on what grounds and from what Vote is the expense defrayed?

Mr. BONAR LAW (Leader of the House): I would refer the hon. Member to the answer which I gave on Thursday last to questions by my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, East, and the hon. and gallant Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme.

ROYAL NAVY.

OFFICERS (RETIREMENT).

13. Commander VISCOUNT CURZON: asked the First Lord of the Admiralty how many applications have so far been received from officers of the Royal Navy and Royal Marines on the active list for voluntary retirement; whether it is intended to retire any officers compulsorily; and, if so, how it is proposed to intimate this fact to them?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the ADMIRALTY (Colonel Sir James Craig): Excluding midshipmen and cadets, the number of applications received up to 19th April, inclusive, from officers of the Royal Navy and the Royal
Marines on the active list for retirement under the special scheme of retirement is 117. In addition, 107 applications have been received for withdrawal of cadets and 16 for withdrawal of midshipmen.
Except as announced for naval cadets of certain duties, it is not intended at present to retire officers compulsorily, save in cases which come under Regulations previously existing.

VESSELS (RE-SALE).

Mr. PALMER: 14.
asked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether in the contract for the sale of ships of the Royal Navy to foreign countries there is any clause stipulating that there shall be no re-sale to our late enemies; and, if not, whether an assurance can be given that the contract will be amended, with a view to furnishing such safeguards?

Mr. LONG: The re-sale of vessels is prohibited by the conditions of sale; and where warships are sold to foreign countries, a bond is taken when necessary to secure that the vessel should be broken up to the satisfaction of the Admiralty.

Mr. HOUSTON: Can the right hon. Gentleman give the House an assurance that in no circumstances will any of these ships be allowed to pass into the hands of potential enemies? If he cannot give that assurance, will he not break up the ships?

Mr. LONG: I cannot give that assurance, because I do not know what the potential enemy is. So far, all our sales have been to Allies.

Mr. BILLING: Can the right hon. Gentleman give the House some idea as to the age of the ships that are being sold, and, having regard to the fact that some ancient ships had modern guns fitted during the War, can he say whether these modern guns are being included?

Mr. LONG: Obviously I cannot give such detailed information, but I can tell the hon. Member that no ship is being sold which is not surplus to the requirements of His Majesty's Navy, and that no ship is sold without the approval and advice of the staff of the Navy. The question of sale has been considered by the Government as a whole, and every possible precaution is taken to prevent
sales which would be likely to result in any possible injury to us. May I also point out that, if we do not sell ships which are surplus to our naval requirements, the result will merely be that a foreign country wanting a ship will order one to be built here—an order which would be readily taken—or will buy from some other country.

PRIZE MONEY.

Viscount CURZON: 15.
asked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether he will consider the publication of a complete balance sheet of the Naval Prize Fund, showing the actual or estimated receipts and expenditure under all headings in detail?

Sir J. CRAIG: An account showing the receipts or payments from the Naval Prize Fund up to the 31st March, 1920, will be prepared and laid before the House in accordance with Section 1 (5) of the Naval Prize Act, 1918. A similar account will be prepared annually. I regret that no balance sheet can be prepared showing the estimated receipts and expenditure.

Viscount CURZON: 16.
asked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether officers and men on the active list of the Royal Navy and Royal Marines at the outbreak of War, who were ordered to serve on shore and not given an opportunity to serve at sea during the War, also the officers and men of the examination service, will be allowed to participate in the distribution of prize money; and will a man wounded and invalided or discharged, or retained under treatment on shore, before completing the prescribed period of sea service to enable him to participate in a full share of the prize money, be penalised thereby?

Sir J. CRAIG: Only officers and men who actually served in a ship of war at sea during the War are eligible to participate in prize money. Those who were invalided or certified as medically fit for shore service only, as a result of wounds or injuries received whilst on qualifying service at sea, are entitled to the maximum rate which they could have earned, irrespective of actual time at sea. These conditions are laid down in the Proclamation of the 10th February, 1919, of which the draft was laid before the House in 1918. Employment in the examination
service is not regarded as service in a ship of war at sea. Officers and men so engaged during the War are not, therefore, eligible for prize money.

Viscount CURZON: Are we to understand that the Marines serving heavy guns in Flanders will not be entitled to any share in the prize money or field allowance?

Sir J. CRAIG: I think that, if my Noble Friend will look at the Proclamation, he will see it all laid out very carefully.

Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: Will the next-of-kin get the prize money of the deceased officers?

Mr. LONG: Perhaps my hon. and gallant Friend will put down a question on that point.

WAR GRATUITY (BALTIC PATROL).

Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKE: 18.
asked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether he will consider the possibility of continuing the war gratuity to ships' companies up to 31st December, 1919, in the case of men who served in the Baltic Patrol after the Armistice and consequently under war conditions; and, failing this concession, will he make the same allowances as in the case of officers and men serving in South Russia?

Sir J. CRAIG: This matter has been carefully considered, and it is regretted that it is not possible to grant the hon. Member's request.

ADMIRALTY BUILDINGS.

Mr. WALLACE: 19.
asked the First Lord of the Admiralty what buildings in London are occupied by members of his staff in addition to the official quarters in Whitehall; what rent is being paid for buildings so occupied; and for which departments under his jurisdiction it is necessary to provide extra accommodation?

Sir J. CRAIG: There never has been sufficient accommodation provided in Whitehall for the whole of the Admiralty staff. I am sending to my hon. Friend the information he asks for regarding other premises, prepared by the Office of Works, as he will see, in such a detailed form as would prove inconvenient to publish in an answer to a question.

Mr. WALLACE: Can the hon. and gallant Gentleman tell me how the extra accommodation, and the expenditure upon it, compares with a pre-War year, say 1913–14?

Sir J. CRAIG: If my hon. Friend will look at the detailed statement which has been sent to him, he will see that marks have been put opposite the places required in consequence of the War, and will also see notes which will show him which ones will be dropped as soon as ever contraction makes it possible.

SICK-BERTH EATINGS.

Sir T. BRAMSDON: 20.
asked the Secretary to the Admiralty whether he is aware that since January, 1919, 40 sickberth ratings have been invalided or otherwise disposed of, and that in place of these ratings only 21 advancements have been made, these being five sick-berth stewards advanced to chief sick-berth stewards, seven second sick-berth stewards advanced to sick-berth stewards, and nine sick-berth attendants advanced to second sick-berth stewards; of the former advancements two were dated 1st March, 1920, and the remaining advancements were dated 1st April, 1920; is he aware that there are 40 sick-berth attendants with 6½ to 7½ years' service, and a number of second sick-berth stewards with 11 to 12 years' service still awaiting promotion; that although the sick-berth staff holds out no inducements to retain the younger members in the Service, no opportunity has been given these ratings of procuring their discharge either by purchase or otherwise; and whether it is proposed to take any steps to relieve this stagnation of advancement and so give the younger members some inducement to remain in the Service, observing that the Admiralty, on the finding of the Durnford Commission of 1910, expressed the desire that sick-berth rating should attain the rating of chief sick-berth steward at the age of 32?

Sir J. CRAIG: My hon. Friend has not been correctly informed as regards the figures given in the first part of the question, the proportion of advancements to invalidings, etc., being much greater than is suggested. Owing to the temporary shortage of ratings in this branch it was not possible to extend to the branch the opportunity of obtaining free discharges, except in specially urgent com-
passionate cases. The process of reducing the Fleet to post-War numbers has had the temporary effect of delaying advancements, but the normal wastage which has occurred since the Armistice has now nearly reduced the Sick-birth Branch to its peace numbers, and promotion will therefore shortly be resumed. Steps were taken last year to accelerate advancement in this branch. I may add that, since this answer was prepared, under my supervision, I have had a list made out which I am going to hand to the hon. Member to show where his figures are in error.

Sir T. BRAMSDON: 21.
asked the Secretary to the Admiralty whether he is aware that, owing to the shortage of sick-berth rating in the Royal Naval Hospital, Haslar, the leave of the staff has consequently been considerably curtailed; that probationary sick-berth attendants have been acting as sick-berth attendants for the past year; that these unqualified ratings have actually been in charge of wards to allow the leave, meagre as it is, to continue; that many ratings were not able to obtain their Easter leave of 1919 until the latter end of December, 1919, and the early part of 1920; and that demobilisation leave is still owing to members of the sick-berth staff; will some action be taken to allow these ratings to enjoy the same leave privileges as other ratings of the service; and will the Medical Director-General pay a visit to the hospital to afford ratings an interview on many existing grievances?

Sir J. CRAIG: Although there is still considerable additional work in all the Royal Naval Hospitals due to the War, there is no reason to believe that the sick-berth ratings at the Royal Naval Hospital, Haslar, have any substantial cause of complaint. Should they have, however, they can represent it through the usual channel in the manner prescribed by the Regulations. A report has been called for on the various points raised in the question, and any action which may be necessary will be considered when it is received.

Sir T. BRAMSDON: Will the Medical Director-General pay a visit to the hospital in order to go personally into these grievances?

Sir J. CRAIG: I am sure that, as a consequence of the latter part of my reply,
namely, that a report has been called for, some steps equivalent to that will be taken.

Sir T. BRAMSDON: Does the hon. and gallant Gentleman know that the stagnation of promotion has been a cause of serious complaint among these ratings for a long time?

Sir J. CRAIG: I think the answer to the next question will reassure the hon. Member on that point.

Sir T. BRAMSDON: 22.
asked the Secretary to the Admiralty whether he is aware that 14 pensioner chief sick-berth stewards and one sick-berth steward, 13 of whom are serving in the Royal Naval Hospital, Haslar, and who were to have been discharged on 31st March last, after having completed an extra year's service, have again been retained for a further indefinite period owing to the shortage of sick-berth staff rating; that this is causing considerable discontent amongst activeservice ratings, who consider that if these ratings are necessary to the hospital, as the Admiralty by their actions admit they are, they should have been promoted from the active-service ratings and the staff increased to allow of this; that these retained ratings are in receipt of pay, pension, store allowance, and separation allowance; and that by promoting active-service ratings considerable economy would have been effected?

Sir J. CRAIG: The pensioner sick-berth ratings retained at Haslar should normally not be required, and are only retained because of an epidemic of influenza. They will be discharged as soon as it subsides. Their retention in no way affects promotion of others. If active service ratings had been advanced to meet this temporary emergency, they would be redundant when the emergency disappeared, and promotion must be dependent on the requirements of the post-War Fleet.

CIVIL LIABILITIES GRANT (TIME LIMIT).

Mr. ALFRED DAVIES: 24.
(Clitheroe)
asked the Minister of Labour whether he is aware that a considerable number of pensioners have been refused grants by the Civil Liabilities Commissioners on account of their applications being too
late; whether he is aware that many Local War Pensions Committees were never informed as to the final date when application for grants could be made, with the result that many bonâ fide cases have been ruled out; and whether, seeing that pensioners depended largely upon the advice and instruction received from Local War Pensions Committees, he will take steps to have reviewed all cases recommended by such committees?

Mr. FOREMAN: 33.
asked the Minister of Labour whether he is willing to reconsider all cases in which it seems that hardship is caused by the refusal of the Military Service (Civil Liabilities) Department to make any payment to men who have postponed their applications for aid till one year after demobilisation in the hope to make, without State aid, both ends meet; whether he needs authority for this course; and whether he can now make a statement on the whole subject?

The MINISTER of LABOUR (Dr. Macnamara): I would refer my hon. Friends to the reply given on Thursday last to a question asked on this subject by the hon. Member for Hammersmith, North (Mr. Foreman), who now puts No. 33, in which I promised that I would look into the question of the one year's rule afresh if experience shows that hardship is caused by its operation. I am going into this matter further, and will communicate with my hon. Friends as soon as I am in a position to do so.

BAKING TRADE (NIGHT WORK).

Mr. JOHN DAVISON: 25.
asked the Minister of Labour when he proposes to introduce the Bill to give legislative effect to the recommendations of the committee of inquiry into night work in the baking trade?

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Major Baird): My right hon. Friend has asked me to reply to this question. The Home Secretary hopes to be able to introduce the Bill shortly.

EX-SERVICE MEN.

ABSORPTION IN INDUSTRY.

Mr. SUGDEN: 27.
asked the Minister of Labour what numbers of demobilized
officers (military, naval, and aerial), disabled and undisabled, and of demobilised men (military, naval, and aerial), disabled and undisabled, are still unemployed; and if he is willing to summon conferences in each county of employers and employés to consider their, position and to proffer practical means to remedy the position?

Dr. MACNAMARA: On 16th April the number of unemployed demobilised officers on the Live Register of the Appointments Department was 6,229, and the number of unemployed ex-service men, 7,260. The proportion of these ex-officers and men who were disabled cannot be stated. The number of unemployed ex-service men on the live registers of the Employment Exchanges was 217,614, of whom about 21,700 were disabled. I may say that the Appointments Department has the assistance of a very large number of professional and business men, organised in District Selective Committees and Interviewing Boards, who not only assist individual ex-service officers and men to obtain appointments, but also advise and assist the Ministry in dealing with the general problems arising out of re-settlement. Joint Committees representing employers and employed also already exist in connection with every Employment Exchange throughout the country. These Committees already give particular attention to the cases of ex-service men, and are being asked to make a special effort in the next few weeks in order to secure the re-employment of these men to the fullest possible extent. I am, naturally, watching this question of the absorption of ex-service officers and men in industry with the closest care and will certainly bear my hon. Friend's suggestion in mind.

Mr. BILLING: What proportion of these 280,000 are skilled and what proportion are unskilled?

Dr. MACNAMARA: I could not say that offhand.

Mr. BILLING: Will the right hon. Gentleman consider the possibility of advertising in the respective districts the trades these men are suitable for, especially the suitability of unskilled men from the building trade?

Captain B0WYER: 28.
asked the Minister of Labour whether he is aware of the delay in, and of the inadequacy of, the present arrangements for the training of disabled men; and what steps he proposes to take to remedy these?

Dr. MACNAMARA: I am aware that the facilities for the training of disabled men are at present insufficient. Considerable progress has, however, been made in the last few months, and the number of such men in training on 18th April was approximately 21,000, of whom over 8,000 commenced their training during the present year. The number of Instructional Factories has now been increased to 57, as compared with 31 on 1st January, and when the equipment of these factories is completed a further 16,000 trainees will be provided for. I hope that the efforts that are being made will enable waiting lists to be materially reduced in the near future, and I can assure my hon. and gallant Friend that the question of the training of disabled men is receiving the close personal attention of the Parliamentary Secretary and myself. I should like to say, if I may be allowed, that I will gladly arrange for any hon. Members who may so desire to visit one of these centres. I am sure they will be greatly struck, as I have been, with the keenness of the men and the avidity with which they lay hold of the first-class instruction offered them.

Captain BOWYER: Will the right hon. Gentleman do anything to decrease the delay which occurs in the correspondence when one of these cases applies?

Dr. MACNAMARA: Yes, I am afraid there has been delay. All that can be done to expedite matters will be done.

Viscount CURZ0N: Are any of these men being trained in engineering trades, and, if so, is there any modification in the attitude of the Society of Engineers towards the employment of disabled soldiers?

Dr. MACNAMARA: If the hon. and gallant Gentleman will go to Twickenham and see the engineering school there he will find a complete answer to his question. They are being trained there. As to the latter part of his question, I have no further information on the point. Perhaps he will put a question down.

Mr. MILLS: Is it not a fact that the factories all over the country are being worked amicably and are staffed entirely by the Amalgamated Society of Engineers who are training these men?

Dr. MACNAMARA: In connection with Twickenham I found the instructors there to whom I spoke were members of the Amalgamated Society of Engineers instructing the men most admirably in their work.

Mr. KILEY: Can my right hon. Friend assure the House that when the men are fully instructed there is any prospect of their obtaining employment?

Dr. MACNAMARA: I said in answer to No. 27 I am naturally watching this question of the absorption of the men in the industry with the closest care and will certainly adopt the best suggestions to that end which my hon. Friend puts in his question.

Mr. MILLS: Will the right hon. Gentleman get into touch immediately with the Ministry of Munitions having regard to the promise made to introduce the cable industry into Woolwich and the possibilities it opens up there of the employment of ex-soldiers?

Dr. MACNAMARA: I am obliged to the hon. Member for suggesting any means of absorbing ex-soldiers. We are all obliged to him for the suggestion. Whether his proposal is practicable I do not know, but I will make it my business at once to take up the suggestion he makes with the Ministry of Munitions.

IRELAND (CIVIL LIABILITIES GRANTS).

Captain COOTE: 52.
asked the Prime Minister whether, in view of the lamentable position of ex-service men in Ireland, he will authorise the payment of grants to enable such men to set up in businesses of their own and cause the Regulations of the Civil Liabilities (Military Service) Department to be specially extended in order to make this possible?

Mr. BONAR LAW: I am fully alive to the difficulties to which the present position in Ireland exposes ex-service men. The whole case is being examined, and the position of Civil Liabilities grants will receive the most careful consideration.

Captain COOTE: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there are 187,000 of these ex-service men in Ireland all more or less in a lamentable condition, and can steps be taken to expedite some provision being made?

Mr. BONAR LAW: Perhaps I had better answer the hon. Member's next question, and he can then ask any supplementary question which he desires to put.

Captain COOTE: 53.
asked the Prime Minister whether he is aware of the appalling situation of ex-service men in Ireland; that these men are boycotted by employers, who dare not give them work; that the unemployment dole is insufficient to support them; that in many cases the right to unemployment pay has been exhausted and that, in consequence, there is grave danger of these men becoming demoralised and seditious; and what steps he proposes to take to ensure that those Irishmen, who freely undertook a share in the defence of this country, shall not now be left without care or defence?

Mr. BONAR LAW: I am aware that there is a very considerable amount of unemployment among ex-service men in Ireland, and that the problem of the resettlement of ex-service men in industry there has been much accentuated by political causes. Ex-service men in Ireland are, however, at present eligible for out-of-work donation on the same terms and at the same rates as in England. The whole position regarding unemployment in Ireland is engaging the most anxious attention of the Government and my right hon. Friends the Minister for Labour and the Secretary for Ireland are at present consulting as to the best means of dealing with the situation.

Colonel ASHLEY: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that until he gives protection to employers in Ireland who want to employ these ex-service men, no solution can be arrived at?

Mr. DEVLIN: Is not the position of these ex-service men that the Government will do nothing for them at all? Why not frankly admit it?

Mr. BONAR LAW: That is not so. The Government have already taken exceptional measures.

Sir E. CARSON: Does my right hon. Friend include ex-policemen in "exservice men"?

Mr. BONAR LAW: assented.

Mr. DEVLIN: Ex-judges and ex-lawyers?

DOMESTIC SERVICE (TRADE BOARD).

Colonel NEWMAN: 29.
asked the Minister for Labour whether it is his in tention under the Trade Boards Act to set up a Trade Board for domestic service; has he laid the Order upon the Table of the House; whether her is aware that a National federation of Domestic Employers has been formed under the auspices of the Middle Classes Union; and has he been notified of its desire to be consulted and represented on the proposed Board?

Dr. MACNAMARA: As regards the first part of my hon. and gallant Friend's question, I have no power under the existing Trade Boards Acts to establish a Trade Board for domestic service. The remainder of the question, therefore, does not arise.

WOMEN WAR-WORKERS (TRAINING).

Colonel NEWMAN: 30.
asked the Minister of Labour whether a committee of women has been formed to administer £500,000 of public money in connection with the training of women war-workers; whether this committee consists of peeresses, representatives of trades unions, and Government officials; and will he consent to receive a deputation to urge that women members representing the middle classes should be co-opted on the committee?

Dr. MACNAMARA: The committee to which my hon. and gallant Friend refers is, in the main, the same committee which during the War carried on the work for the relief of distress amongst unemployed women. The committee has obtained from the National Relief Fund a sum of £500,000 with which to carry out training for women whose earning capacity has been prejudiced owing to the War. As regards the second part of the question, I am sending my hon. and gallant Friend a list of the committee as at present constituted. As regards the request that I should receive a depu-
tation, which apparently would represent the necessity to increase the membership of the committee, my hon. and gallant Friend will observe that it is already a large committee. But I will further discuss its constitution with my advisers.

Colonel NEWMAN: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that not one of the members of the committee can be described as belonging to the middle class?

Dr. MACNAMARA: I dissent from that. Surely the trade union women with whom the hon. and gallant Gentleman is evidently familiar, and the Ministry of Labour women he would not put very much higher than the middle class.

MILITARY SERVICE (CIVIL LIABILITIES) DEPARTMENT.

Viscountess AST0R: 31.
asked the Minister of Labour whether, in view of the apparent congestion of correspondence in the Military Service (Civil Liabilities) Department, which results in official communications from the Plymouth War Pensions Committee remaining unanswered, and in unsatisfactory treatment being given to the claims of disabled men throughout the country, he will consider the desirability of suggesting that this Department should be placed under the Ministry of Pensions in order that there may be greater concentration of authority and greater efficiency in dealing with grants and allowances to ex-service men?

Dr. MACNAMARA: I am afraid there has been delay in replying to communications. But I have satisfied myself personally that every effort is being made to deal promptly with communications which reach this Department, and I should be very glad indeed if my hon. Friend would avail herself of an opportunity of inspecting its organisation and routine. I have called for a full report of the complaint from Plymouth.

Mr. PALMER: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that throughout the country there is the gravest dissatisfaction with the work of this Department, and will he scrap the lot and institute a new Department which will deal in a businesslike and humane manner with the applications that come before it?

Dr. MAGNAMARA: I have no intention of scrapping the lot—a phrase I seem to remember in another connection. I took occasion last Saturday week to spend a part of the morning there, and I am satisfied that those who are there are working very hard. They have cleared away a vast amount of work.

VETERANS (WORKHOUSES AND OUT-RELIEF).

Mr. DOYLE: 35.
asked the Minister of Health how many veterans are inmates of workhouses at the present time and how many are now in receipt of out-relief; what proportion of these are survivors of the Crimean War, the Indian Mutiny, the South African, Frontier, and other wars waged prior to 1914; and what steps he is taking to alter this state of affairs?

The MINISTER of HEALTH (Dr. Addison): I regret that the information which my hon. Friend desires is not in my possession.

Mr. WATERSON: Is it possible to get details?

CONTAMINATED WAR STORES.

Mr. JOHN DAVISON: 36.
asked the Minister of Health whether he has received any resolutions of protest from the various trade unions and other organisations in the district of Bow and Bromley strongly protesting against the dumping of infectious and contaminated surplus stores of Government war materials in that district, and demanding that all such stores deposited there should be destroyed at once and no further quantities allowed be landed in this country, as, in their opinion, this dumping is responsible for the outbreak of small-pox in that district; and whether he can state what action he proposes to take in the matter?

Dr. ADDISON: I have received a resolution of protest from the Bow and Bromley Local Labour Party in regard to this matter. As stated yesterday by my hon. and gallant Friend, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Shipping, the stores referred to in the question are in course of removal, and it is expected that the removal will be completed by the end of next week. These stores will be thoroughly disinfected and deposited in premises which have been
secured for this purpose outside London. The disinfection is being carried out under the supervision of one of the medical officers of the Ministry of Health. I am informed that no stores belonging to the Ministry of Shipping which are known to be infected are allowed to be placed in store until they have been adequately disinfected.

REGISTRAR OF BIRTHS AND DEATHS, TOLLINGTON.

Mr. HIGHAM: 37.
asked the Minister of Health if he is aware that the registrar of births and deaths for the Tollington sub-district of Islington, who has held the position for nine years, is paid a salary of 1s. per entry; that the appointment is a whole-time one; and that the total salary received by the registrar in question, who is between 40 and 50 years of age, is only £105 per annum, out of which he has to provide and pay for an office, light, coal, deputy if required, and certain stationery; if he will explain why no War bonus or increase has been received by the above-mentioned up to the present time to meet the extra cost of living; what steps will be taken to remedy this state of affairs; and whether a system of promotion by seniority will be arranged whereby registrars would rise to more remunerative districts as vacancies occur?

Dr. ADDISON: Registrars of births and deaths are not salaried officers, and their appointments are not whole time appointments. They receive statutory fees from the public and the Guardians in respect of services which occupy different registrars for different proportions of their time. I understand that the figure stated correctly represents the total average fees received by the registrar mentioned; but I am informed that his duties by no means occupy the whole of his time. As regards the question of War bonus, I am sending the hon. member a copy of the replies on this subject which I gave to the hon. Member for Lincoln on the 10th April, 1919, and to the hon. and gallant Member for Edmonton on the 3rd ultimo. As regards the last part of the question, as the power of appointment of registrars within each Union area is vested in the Guardians for the Union, I regret that the suggestion is not practicable.

HOUSING.

LUXURY BUILDING (RESTRICTIONS).

Mr. ROSE: 38.
asked the Minister of Health, in view of the prevalence of luxury building and the indifference and apathy of local authorities, if he is prepared to issue an imperative instruction or to introduce immediate legislation to prohibit all building but housing until the requirements of the people are adequately provided?

Dr. ADDISON: I have issued a memorandum for the guidance of local authorities in the exercise of their powers, under Section 5 of the Housing (Additional Powers) Act, 1919, of prohibiting buildings of less public importance than housing, and many authorities have already taken action. The operation of this Section is being carefully watched and I shall certainly not hesitate to seek further powers if they seem to be required.

Mr. ROSE: In view of the very urgent necessity in this case, will the right hon. Gentleman give the House some assurance that all unnecessary building is to be either drastically restricted, or prohibited altogether, until the housing requirements of the people are met? The whole thing is entirely unsatisfactory.

Mr. PALMER: Is it not a fact that in London there are large buildings needed for commercial purposes which might, under a drastic rule, be arrested while the building of the housing accommodation is still awaiting realisation?

Viscount CURZON: Is it not a fact that the prohibition of luxury building in London has resulted in the blocking of very important street improvements and street widenings?

Dr. ADDISON: With regard to the last question, I am not aware of anything of the kind. I do not believe that the restrictions in London have had any such effect. I can well believe that certain cases of the kind mentioned by my hon. Friend (Mr. Palmer) might arise. That shows the importance of judging each case on its merits. With regard to the general question, I have not the powers which my hon. Friend (Mr. Rose) refers to. I sometimes wish I had. I exercise to the full the powers which Parliament has given me; but this matter is vested in the local authorities, and in every case where
a case is brought to my I urge the local authorities to exercise their powers sufficiently, of course, with wisdom and judgment.

Colonel LOWTHER: Is it not a fact that certain buildings in London were commenced five years ago, but owing to the prohibition order they have not yet been finished—the London County Council?

Dr. ADDISON: That may be so, but they may now be of less importance than housing.

Sir W. DAVISON: Is it not a fact that the prohibition of many of these buildings has thrown a considerable number of men out of employment?

Dr. ADDISON: I am not aware of anybody being thrown out of employment. I am perfectly certain that we can absorb them all quite easily on the housing schemes in the Metropolitan area which are now in progress.

SUBSIDY ARRANGEMENTS.

Mr. CAPE: 39.
asked the Minister of Health what is his present estimate of the number of houses which are likely to be completed this year under the subsidy arrangements established by the Housing (Additional Powers) Act, 1919?

Dr. ADDISON: Up to the end of last month certificates had been issued by local authorities in England and Wales for the erection of 4,299 houses. I am at present considering with my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer the revision of the terms of the grants, and until a decision is reached, it will not be practicable to make an estimate of the total number of houses likely to be completed this year under this scheme.

COMMERCIAL BUILDINGS.

Earl WINTERTON: 41.
asked whether any protests have been received by him, on account of the stoppage of commercial building in London under the Housing, Acts?

Dr. ADDISON: No such protests have been received by me. There has been one appeal against an Order made by a local authority in the Metropolitan area, which has been referred to the Appeal Tribunal set up under Section 5 (2) of the Housing (Additional Powers) Act, 1919.

METROPOLITAN SCHEMES.

Major PRESCOTT: 43.
asked the Minister of Health if he can state the places in which work is in progress on housing schemes in the Metropolitan area, taking the Metropolitan police district as the limit?

Dr. ADDISON: Work on the erection of houses is in progress on 57 different sites in this area. These schemes relate to 38 different local authorities. Tenders for the erection of houses have been approved in the case of 12 other local authorities, and preliminary work has already been, or will shortly be, commenced. I will circulate a list of the authorities in the OFFICIAL REPORT. Work on roads and sewers is proceeding in a number of other cases, which are shown in a second list. Considerable progress is being made; but much more is required and will be forthcoming if money and labour are adequately available.

The following is the list referred to:

METROPOLITAN POLICE DISTRICT.

I.—List of local authorities and of sites where work is proceeding on the erection of houses.

London County Council.

Old Oak, Norbury, Tabard Street.

Metropolitan Boroughs.

Camberwell: Casino House, Hawk-slade Road, Belwood Lane.
Deptford: Africa Road.
Hammersmith: Ducane Road.
Islington: City and Queen's Mansions.
Lambeth: Holderness House, Porto-bello House Estate.
Poplar: Ridgedale Street, Chapel House Street, Baldock Street.
St. Pancras: Chester Road site.
Wandsworth: Magdalene Park.
Woolwich: Page Estate.

Middlesex.

Acton Urban District Council: Acton Wells site, public playing fields.
Ealing Town Council: Village Park.
Harrow Urban District Council: Honeybuns Farm site.
Hayes Urban District Council: Botwell site, Yeading.
 Hendon Urban District Council: Childs Hill.
1212
Ruislip Northwood Urban District Council: Fore Street, Clack Lane, Ruislip Common, Pinner Road.
Southgate Urban District Council: Highfield Road.
Sunbury-on-Thames Urban District Council: Nursery Road.
Teddington Urban District Council: May's Estate.
Uxbridge Urban District Council: George Street and Mentague Lane.
Wealdstone Urban District Council: Byron Road
Wembley Urban District Council: Ealing Road and Christchurch Estate site.

Essex.

East Ham Town Council: Central site.
Barking Urban District Council: Eastbury Estate.
Ilford Urban District Council: Tomswood Hill.
Epping Rural District Council: Theydon Garnon, Theydon Bois, Potter Street, North Weald
Romford Rural District Council: Havering Parish, Marsh Green, Dagenham.

Hertfordshire.

East Barnet Valley Urban District Council: East Barnet Road.
Watford Urban District Council: Willow's Lane, Harebreak's Estate.
Barnet Urban District Council: May's Lane.

Kent.

Dartford Urban District Council: Lowfield Estate.

Surrey.

Croydon Town Council: Long Lane North.
Barnes Urban District Council: Limes Avenue, Rosemary Lane.
Carshalton Urban District Council: Culvers Estate.
Merton and Morden Urban District Council: Claremont Avenue
Surbiton Urban District Council: Tolworth.
Maldens and Coombe Urban District Council: Mount Pleasant site.
Epsom Rural District Council: Burgh Heath, Woodmansterne.

II.—List of Local Authorities and sites (in addition to those in List I..) where tenders for the erection of houses have been approved, and preliminary work has been or will be shortly commenced.

City of London.

Ilford, Hercules Road.
Metropolitan Borough.
Shoreditch: New North Road.

Middlesex.

Heston and Isleworth Urban District Council: Warren Estate.
Southall Norwood Urban District Council: Western Road.
Staines Urban District Council: Worple Road.
Twickenham Urban District Council: Site No. 5.
Hendon Rural District Council: Whitchurch Lane, Hooking Green.

Essex.

Epping Urban District Council: St. Johns Road.

Hertfordshire.

Watford Rural District Council: Abbots Langley.

Kent.

Bromley Rural District Council: Fordecroft, Holmfield, Starts Hill.

Surrey.

Epsom Urban District Council: Hookfield.
Richmond Town Council: Dorell Road.

Mr. KILEY: Are there any houses available under these schemes?

Dr. ADDISON: Yes, a considerable number. There has been gross misrepresentation on this subject, as usual.

BUILDING MATERIALS (COST).

Major PRESCOTT: 44.
asked the Minister of Health the percentage to which the cost of building materials for houses has increased during the past nine months; and whether he has any evidence as to the formation of building rings in any town or district?

Sir R. J. THOMAS: When the right hon. Gentleman answers this question can he say when the Profiteering Committee which has considered the price of building materials will issue its Report?

Dr. ADDISON: I would refer my hon. and gallant Friend to Command Paper 611, which sets out the changes in the prices of the principal building materials. Enquiry into the existence of associations and combines of the kind indicated is being made by the Committee appointed under the Profiteering Act by my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade to inquire into profiteering in building materials, and it is hoped that the Report of that Committee will be available shortly.

HOUSES COMPLETED.

Major PRESCOTT: 61.
asked the Minister of Health whether he will give the number of completed houses and those for which the foundations have been laid since the new Housing Act came into force; and if he will give the total cost of administering the Department of the Director-General of Housing for England and Wales since its formation?

Dr. ADDISON: According to Returns received on the 1st April, 1920, 1,346 houses and flats were completed with the exception, in some cases, of painting, while a further 12,138 houses were in various stages of construction. The cost to date of the Department of the Director General of Housing is about £124,000.

AGGREGATE GRANT.

Lieut.-Colonel Sir S. HOARE: 64.
asked how many grants in aid of housing have been made under Section 1 of the Housing (Additional Powers) Act, 1919; and what is the total amount of such grants?

Dr. ADDISON: As regards England and Wales, plans of 3,841 houses, representing an aggregate grant of £596,023, had been certified by local authorities up to the end of March as eligible for grant under Section 1 of the Housing (Additional Powers) Act, 1919.

DEATHS FROM PNEUMONIA, BERMONDSEY.

Mr. W. THORNE: 67.
asked the Minister of Health whether he is now in a position to make a statement concerning the deaths of Mr. and Mrs. Hayles and their infant son, who died at the Bermondsey Infirmary?

Dr. ADDISON: I am informed that an inquest has been held, and that the verdict returned was one of death from heart failure from lobar pneumonia due
to natural causes. I am awaiting copies of the depositions, but I think it is fair to state that according to the Press reports, the charges which were made in regard to this case were not confirmed at the inquest.

Mr. THORNE: The right hon. Gentleman will remember that when I put a supplementary question, I asked him whether he would be good enough to inquire into the housing conditions in this district. Has that inquiry been carried out?

Dr. ADDISON: Inquiry has been made, and I have a complete report, of which I will send the hon. Member a copy.

MEDICAL RESEARCH.

Mr. SUGDEN: 42.
asked the Minister of Health what numbers of physicians and surgeons are employed on State medical research duties; and what means he proposes to adopt to give proper remuneration to essential national work?

Dr. ADDISON: I regret that I am not in a position to give my hon. Friend the information he desires without considerable inquiry, as medical men are now engaged in medical research duties in various other Government Departments. In many cases, moreover, experts in particular subjects are temporarily employed to conduct special investigations as occasion arises, and therefore the total number of those engaged on research work is a variable one.

Mr. SUGDEN: Has the right hon. Gentleman any policy in respect of medical research work in the country?

Dr. ADDISON: The best answer to that is to send my hon. Friend a copy of the last report of the Medical Research Committee, with which I have been closely associated from its formation.

IRELAND.

GOVERNMENT OF IRELAND BILL.

Colonel ASHLEY: 45.
asked the Prime Minister what amendments the Government intend to propose to the Government of Ireland Bill in order to safeguard the future interests of ex-service men and ex-policemen in Ireland, in view of the
fact that the recent official manifesto issued by the new British Ambassador to the United States of America contained the statement that when the Bill becomes operative it will be the duty of all British subjects who are not domiciled in Ireland to stand aside and leave those who live there to solve their own problems?

Mr. BONAR LAW: The proper opportunty for considering amendments to the Bill will be when it comes up for discussion in Committee.

Colonel ASHLEY: Is the right hon. Gentleman not aware that there will be a closure on the Committee stage of this Bill, and that the only opportunity which private Members have of putting down Amendments will be taken away? Therefore I ask what Amendments the Government propose to put into the Bill to safeguard the ex-service men and the policemen?

Mr. BONAR LAW: The hon. and gallant Member is mistaken. The time allowed will be sufficient to enable hon. Members to put down Amendments.

UNITED STATES OPINION.

Mr. ALFRED T. DAVIES: 72.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether, considering the lack of public information concerning the state of public opinion in the United States on the question of Ireland, it is proposed to establish means in this country to inform the community; and whether any arrangements to that end have already been made?

The UNDER SECRETARY for STATE for FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Mr. Cecil Harmsworth): The community can obtain information as to public opinion in the United States through the usual newspaper channels, and it is not considered necessary to set up any special organisation for this purpose.

CORK DISTURBANCES.

Colonel ASHLEY: (by Private Notice) asked the Attorney-General for Ireland whether he is aware that for two whole days and nights during the week before last the city of Cork was in the hands of the mob; that motorists who did not produce Sinn Fein permits were given half an hour to clear out of the city; that no police or soldiers were visible in the streets by day or night on those days,
and whether he can assure the House that an ample force of police and soldiers is now stationed in that city to deal with any fresh outbursts of mob violence, and that they will actually intervene if necessary?

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL for IRELAND (Mr. Denis Henry): It is not a fact that the city of Cork was in the hands of a mob for two days during the week before last. In the two days of the general strike hired motor cars were in some cases stopped by trade union pickets, and drivers persuaded to return to their garages. Trade union permits were given in some such cases to travel. There were no Sinn Fein permits issued. No violence was used and no complaints were made to the police. Police were on duty in the streets during the whole time and a party of military was in readiness to turn out if required. There were no disturbances. The existing police force in the city is considered ample to deal with anything that may arise

Colonel ASHLEY: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether, if I show him a letter which I have in my pocket from a private gentleman who went into Cork on those days and was turned out of Cork when he was driving his own private motor car, and his friend saw police and soldiers nowhere, he will take any action?

Mr. J. M. MILLS: More Bolshevik atrocities!

Mr. HENRY: I communicated with the County Inspector of Cork, and the answer I have read is his answer.

Colonel ASHLEY: Very likely.

WORMWOOD SCRUBS PRISONERS (REFUSAL OF FOOD).

Mr. PALMER: (by Private Notice) asked the Lord Privy Seal whether there has been any change in the policy of the Government in regard to the treatment of the Sinn Fein suspects imprisoned in Wormwood Scrubs within the last forty-eight hours; if so, and with a view to allaying the feelings of irritation which have been caused, notably in Glasgow and Liverpool (where more than 200,000 Irish workers threaten an immediate hold-up of the port by a strike) he can make any statement to the House and to the country?

Mr. T. P. O'CONNOR: I have a question of the same kind, namely, if the right hon. Gentleman has received information from the Lord Mayor of Liverpool and the Chief Constable of the possibility of a strike of Irish workmen in that city as a protest against the treatment of the Irish political prisoners at Wormwood Scrubs and demanding their release, and whether the Government will not by immediate action prevent this disaster to the city of Liverpool?

Mr. BONAR LAW: There has been no change of policy. As in previous cases, men who have by persistent refusal of food reduced themselves to such a state that their lives are in danger are being removed to hospital, but the reasons for maintaining the internment of the prisoners still remain. The trouble among the Irish workers in Glasgow and Liverpool would, I feel sure, disappear if they could realise the actual facts. They have been told that the men are detained illegally and treated inhumanely. For these allegations there is no foundation. Their detention is lawful and their treatment is humane and lenient. Nothing could give the Government greater satisfaction than to put an end to these internments, but they are rendered necessary by the atrocious murders that prevail in Ireland and by the terrorism which makes it impossible to bring to trial the murderers and their accomplices.

Mr. O'CONNOR: I think it my duty to exhaust every means to avert this disaster in Liverpool, and accordingly I beg to ask leave to move the Adjournment of the House for the purpose of discussing a definite matter of urgent public importance, namely, the serious situation that has arisen in Liverpool and other centres of Great Britain in consequence of the Government's refusal to release the Irish political prisoners in Wormwood Scrubbs?

The pleasure of the House having been signified, the Motion stood over, under Standing Order No. 10, until a Quarter past Eight this evening.

LEAGUE OF NATIONS.

DATE OF ASSEMBLY.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: 46.
asked the Prime Minister if he has any information as to when the Assembly of
the League of Nations will be called; what is the cause of the delay; and what is the attitude of His Majesty's representative on the Council of the League towards this question?

Mr. BONAR LAW: No, Sir, but I understand that the subject is likely to be raised at the Council Meeting of the League which will take place next month at Rome. As the States invited to adhere to the League did not have to notify their decision till the 10th March last, and as some Members of the Assembly will have to come great distances to the meeting, it appears hardly likely for the meeting to be held before next autumn.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: If these members are a great distance away, is not that the more reason why they should be summoned early? What is the actual cause of the delay?

Mr. BONAR LAW: I am not responsible for the delay. I have told the hon. Member that the subject is coming up for the next agenda of the Council.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: I asked for information. May I be informed as to the cause of the delay? Surely the Government have that information. I did not suppose the right hon. Gentleman was responsible.

Mr. BONAR LAW: I must have notice of the question, if I am to get the information.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: It is in the question.

PERMANENT COMMISSION.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: 47.
asked whether the permanent commission under Article 9 of the Covenant of the League of Nations has been set up; and, if so, who are its members?

Mr. BONAR LAW: I would refer the hon. and gallant Member to the answer which I gave yesterday to a question by the hon. Member for Govan.

RUSSIAN SOVIET GOVERNMENT.

Mr. BROMFIELD: 69.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the Russian Soviet Government has been invited to send representatives to the International Finance Conference convened by the Council of the League of
Nations; and, if not, whether the British representative on the Council will urge that such an invitation be sent in view of the importance of the Russian situation in any decisions that may be taken by the Conference?

Mr. HARMSWORTH: The answer to the first part of the question is in the negative. The answer to part two is that States not represented on the League of Nations will be invited to furnish full information regarding their financial situation.

Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: Does that include the Russian Soviet Government?

Mr. HARMSWORTH: I assume that would be so, but I would like notice of the question.

Captain WEDGWOOD BENN: How can you invite the Russian Government to send a statement and not invite her to become a member of the League?

REPRESENTATION OF THE PEOPLE BILL.

Earl WINTERTON: 49.
asked the Prime Minister whether, in view of the fact that the Government are unable to give facilities for the passage of the Representation of the People Bill, he can state if it is the intention of the Government to introduce legislation extending the franchise to women during the lifetime of the present Parliament?

Mr. BONAR LAW: I cannot make any statement now as to the legislation which the Government will introduce during future Sessions of the present Parliament.

Earl WINTERTON: Has the right hon. Gentleman's attention been called to the unfortunate position in which those who support this movement in this House will stand by the refusal of representatives of the Government in the House and in the Committee to state what is the policy of the Government towards the extension of the franchise to women? Will the right hon. Gentleman take that into consideration?

Mr. BONAR LAW: The Government do not propose to introduce a Bill this Session, and I cannot say anything beyond that.

Mr. THOMAS: Did not the Government on the Second reading Debate lead the House to believe that, if the Bill was given a Second reading, Government facilities would be given for it?

Mr. BONAR LAW: My right hon. Friend is mistaken. The decision was left, as is usual on a private Member's Bill, to the free vote of the House, but the Minister in charge distinctly stated that the Government could promise no facilities in the way of time.

Captain W. BENN: Will the right hon. Gentleman say what the policy of the Government is in respect to this question?

MONTENEGRO.

Mr. RONALD McNEILL: 51.
asked the Prime Minister if his attention has been called to an assembly held at Gaeta on 12th April, attended by some 2,500 Montenegrin refugees, who, describing themselves as fleeing before the sanguinary Serbian terror into Italy, passed a resolution expressing the pain with which they observed that the Peace Conference has remained indifferent to all appeals and protests against the bloodthirsty tyranny carried on in Montenegro by the Serbian army; whether the statement contained in this resolution that the Serbians had burnt their homes, destroyed villages, and imprisoned or shot their most prominent citizens, accords with information conveyed independently to the Government; and whether it is proposed to pay any attention to the supplication of these refugees that their country shall not be forcibly incorporated in the Serbian Kingdom before the Montenegrin people have had an opportunity of expressing their will as to their fate.

Mr. BONAR LAW: I have seen a copy of the Resolution referred to, but I cannot accept the statements made therein as representing with any accuracy the present situation in Montenegro. The future of Montenegro can only be settled on its merits by agreement between the Allies, and until a settlement is reached any discussion of the question based on ex parte statements is undesirable.

Mr. McNEILL: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that within the last few weeks 5,000 Serbians have been not merely defeated but almost annihilated by an army of Montenegrins, and is it not time to put an end to this fighting by having some peaceful solution of the question?

PALESTINE.

ANTI-JEWISH DISTURBANCES.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: 55.
asked whether, now that the mandate for Palestine has been given to Great Britain, it is intended to set up a civil instead of a military administration, and when that change will be made.

Mr. BONAR LAW: It has always been intended that a civil administration should replace the military administration as soon as circumstances permit of this being done, which will presumably be soon after the signature of the Treaty of Peace with Turkey.

Sir H. BRITTAIN: Has it been decided what form of civil government is to be set up in Palestine?

Colonel WEDGWOOD: 56.
asked the Prime Minister whether Lieutenant Jabotinsky, the man who fought in Gallipoli, and afterwards raised the Jewish battalion in London and took them to Palestine, has been sentenced to 15 years' imprisonment for attempting to raise a force in Jerusalem to defend his coreligionists during the recent pogrom there; and, if so, will he have inquiry made, with a view to his release?

Mr. MILLS: 71.
asked what was the crime for which Jabotinsky, the founder of the British Zionist Legion, has been condemned by the military authorities in Palestine to 15 years' imprisonment?

Mr. KILEY: 80
asked (1) whether the Commission of Inquiry appointed to investigate the recent anti-Jewish disturbances in Jerusalem has also been instructed to inquire into the trial of and the sentences upon Mr. Vladimir Jabotinsky and the other members of the Jewish Self-Defence Corps;
(2) whether the Commission of Inquiry appointed to investigate the recent anti-Jewish disturbances in Jerusalem contains
any representatives of the Zionist Commission of the Jewish community of Jerusalem?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the WAR OFFICE (Sir A. Williamson): As I stated yesterday, I hope to be in a position to make a full statement on this subject on Thursday.

Earl WINTERTON: Has the right hon. Gentleman received any evidence to show that the Mussulman and Christian inhabitants of Jerusalem have committed a pogrom on the Jews, and does not the evidence show that there are "six of one and half a dozen of the other"?

Sir A. WILLIAMSON: All the information in the possession of the War Office will be before the House to-morrow.

PHILIPPINES

(COMMISSION OF INDEPENDENCE).

Mr. R. McNEILL: 58.
asked the Prime Minister whether he has any official information in regard to a manifesto issued in Washington by an organisation known as the Philippines Commission of Independence, in which it is maintained that American belief in the principle of self-determination would be demonstrated more impressively by conceding the repeated demand made for independence by 10½ million inhabitants of the Philippines than by passing resolutions in the Senate expressing sympathy with the cause of Irish independence; and whether, as a mark of respect for the American Senate, he will enable this House to follow the precedent set by that Assembly, by moving a Resolution in support of the Philippine demand for self-determination?

Mr. BONAR LAW: I have no information with regard to the manifesto in question, and the matter does not seem to be one with which His Majesty's Government is concerned.

Mr. McNEILL: If the Government is not concerned, will the Leader of the House give facilities for discussion if a group of Irish Members put down a resolution of sympathy with the Philippines?

Mr. BONAR LAW: As the Government is not concerned, I do not think that it is the duty of the Government to take any steps of the kind suggested.

Mr. DEVLIN: As the House is primarily interested in its own affairs, would it not be well if the group of Irish Members put down a motion in favour of self-determination for Ireland?

Sir E. CARSON: Is it not better for each country to leave the other country alone?

Mr. BONAR LAW: I thought that that was my answer.

Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: Leave Ireland alone.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: Leave Montenegro alone.

Mr. DEVLIN: Does the right hon. Gentleman agree with the suggestion of the right hon. Member for Duncairn (Sir E. Carson) that you should let Ireland alone?

Mr. BONAR LAW: I do not accept the suggestion that Ireland is a foreign country, and I would be very thankful if Ireland were to leave us alone.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: It is a hostile country, thanks to you.

Captain LOSEBY: Do not be offensive.

FOOD SUPPLIES.

COLONIAL MEAT.

Colonel NEWMAN: 59.
asked the Prime Minister whether he is yet in a position to make any announcement as to the disposal of Colonial meat, surplus to the immediate requirement of the consumer, now held in store, either in this country, on board ship, or in the country of exportation?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of TRADE (Mr. Bridgeman): I have been asked to reply. Negotiations are proceeding with French and other Continental buyers for the sale of additional quantities of Colonial meat surplus to the immediate requirements of consumers in this country. Sales have also been and are being made of meat which can with advantage be supplied direct from Colonial to American ports By this and other means steps are being taken to relieve the congestion at present existing in the United Kingdom.
The whole question is engaging the serious attention of the Departments concerned.

WHISKY.

Major GLYN: 60.
asked the Lord Privy Seal whether he is aware that a considerable quantity of unwholesome foreign-manufactured whisky is now being imported into this country; that, since the introduction of total prohibition in the United States, manufacturers and spirit agents have been able to dump large stocks of cheap American whisky, even in Scotland, some of which produces unusual effects, depriving the victims of this spirit of the use of their limbs whilst they remain perfectly clear-headed and thoroughly sober; whether there is any power to exclude the import of this raw spirit; and whether the matter can be reconsidered by the Treasury, Board of Trade, and Ministry of Health?

Mr. BONAR LAW: I have no special information as to the facts alleged in the hon. and gallant Member's question, but I will bring the matter to the notice of the appropriate Government Departments.

POSTAL CHARGES (ELECTIONS).

Mr. HOUSTON: 62.
asked the Minister of Health whether he is aware that the Chancellor of the Exchequer proposes to raise the rate of postage on printed matter, and that if this proposal is carried out it is equivalent to a reduction in the scale of a candidate's maximum election expenses as provided by the Representation of the People Act, 1918; whether he is aware that for municipal elections the proposed increased postage will absorb about three-fourths of the maximum expenditure allowed, leaving a candidate with only one halfpenny or thereabouts per elector for all other expenditure; and whether he will provide that the maximum scale of a candidate's expenditure will be increased to cover the increased postage charge?

Dr. ADDISON: As regards the first part of the question, I may refer the hon. Member to the reply which I gave on the 27th instant to the hon. and gallant Member for Rusholme with
reference to the expenses of candidates at Parliamentary elections. As regards municipal elections, legislation would be necessary to increase the maximum scale of expenditure; and it would, I think, be premature to consider any such legislation at the present time.

Mr. HOUSTON: Will my right hon. Friend, in considering this question, bear in mind that two postages are absolutely necessary in municipal elections?

MIDWIVES.

Mr. BRIANT: 63.
asked the Minister of Health the number of practising certified midwives in the United Kingdom and the approximate number required for the proper care of maternity cases; and what steps, if any, does the Ministry propose to take in order to secure that an adequate supply of midwives shall be available?

Dr. ADDISON: As the answer is somewhat lengthy, I propose to circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

The following is the answer supplied:

According to the last report of the Central Midwives Board, the number of women entitled to practise as midwives on 31st March, 1919, was 44,166, but the number who gave notice of their intention to practise in 1918 was only 11,298.

No useful estimate can be made of the total number of midwives required. The shortage which exists in some districts is due to the fact that the number of cases within reach is too small to enable a midwife practising independently to make a living.

The Ministry have continued the policy of the Local Government Board of urging local authorities and nursing associations to subsidise midwifery in the more scattered districts, and of paying grants in respect of such subsidies. By this means the proportion of the rural population served by trained midwives has increased since 1917 from 51 per cent. to 65 per cent., and steady progress is being made. Nearly all the county councils and county nursing associations have framed schemes for extending the midwifery service of their counties.

A number of local authorities in urban areas have also, with the assistance of the Ministry, subsidised the provision of trained midwives in parts of their districts in need of this service.

A grant in aid of the training of women as midwives has been authorised and is being administered by my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Education.

RELIEVING OFFICERS (WAR BONUS).

Lieut.-Colonel Sir S. HOARE: 65.
asked the Minister of Health whether the Ministry have used their power of regulating the salaries of statutory officers to enforce the payment of War bonus to relieving officers; and, if they have not, what are their reasons?

Dr. ADDISON: I am sending my hon. and gallant Friend a copy of the reply which I gave to a similar question asked by the Member for Waterloo on the 2nd March.

SANATORIUM BENEFIT, KINGSTON-UPON-HULL.

Major ENTWISTLE: 66.
asked the Minister of Health whether his attention has been drawn to the report issued by the Kingston-upon-Hull Insurance Committee dealing with the administration of sanatorium benefit for the year ending 31st December, 1919, in which it is pointed out that a large proportion of the number of persons who apply for sanatorium benefit die within a comparatively short period after treatment where such treatment is not followed up by effective after-care; whether he is aware of the striking improvement which has taken place in Hull since the establishment of an after-care committee; and, if so, whether it is the policy of the Minister in his scheme for combating tuberculosis that after-care will form an integral part thereof and receive liberal financial encouragement from Imperial sources?

Dr. ADDISON: The answer to the first three parts of the question is in the affirmative. As regards the last part, the financial arrangements in connection with the scheme for combating tuberculosis are under consideration.

DECEASED SOLDIERS (FRIENDLY SOCIETIES).

Mr. CHARLES EDWARDS: 68.
asked the Minister of Health whether he will consider taking over the payments made by friendly societies to relatives of sailors and soldiers killed in the War and also the ordinary contributions paid per man whilst serving with the colours, and make it a national charge, on the grounds that the War was entirely responsible for these payments; and whether any communication or deputation has been received from representatives of these societies on this point?

Dr. ADDISON: I understand the question to refer to benefits and contributions on the private side of Friendly Societies. These are entirely within the control of the societies themselves and do not fall within my province. The payments of contributions in respect of men serving with the Forces and of benefits to the relatives of men who were killed were made voluntarily on the initiative of the Societies themselves, and while I appreciate the generous spirit which prompted such arrangements, I am afraid that I cannot entertain the suggestion of the hon. Member that the sums disbursed should be refunded to the societies by the Government.

EGYPT (SUEZ CANAL ZONE).

Mr. SWAN: 73.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether Zagloul Pasha has issued a statement that the Egyptian demand for independence does not exclude the placing of the Suez Canal zone under the control of the League of Nations; and whether His Majesty's Government has asked the League of Nations whether it is prepared to take over such control?

Mr. HARMSWORTH: I believe that Zagloul Pasha has made a statement in the sense indicated. The reply to the latter part of the hon. Member's question is in the negative.

NAVAL AND MILITARY PENSIONS AND GRANTS.

GRATUITY FORFEITURE (PRIVATE J. HALPIN).

Lieut.-Colonel HURST: 76.
asked the Secretary of State for War and Air
whether he is aware of the forfeiture of gratuity and service imposed under the Army Act, Section 73 (i), upon Private J. Halpin, No. 93,528, late 7th Battalion, Manchester Regiment; whether he is aware that the alleged desertion, to which this soldier confessed, consisting of absenting himself without leave from Heaton Park on 6th September, 1918, until reporting himself 21 days later to his own unit at the front in Flanders; whether he is satisfied that such confession is valid; and whether, having regard to the true facts of the case, he will see his way to extend clemency to this soldier?

The SECRETARY of STATE for WAR and AIR (Mr. Churchill): I am making inquiries in this case, and will let the hon. and gallant Member know the result as soon as possible.

PEACE TREATIES.

GERMAN AIRCRAFT.

Mr. PALMER: 79.
asked the Secretary of State for War and Air whether he has seen a précis of the Report which General Masterman, head of the Allied Commission of the Air Control, is presenting to th Ambassadors' Conference in Paris, urging the necessity fo immediate Allied action to force Germany to execute the Clauses of the Peace Treaty dealing with suppression of military aircraft in Germany; and whether he is still prepared to trust our late enemy in regard to the 12,000 aeroplanes which, as part of the Treaty, should by now have been handed over?

Mr. CHURCHILL: It may be well for me to explain that Air Commodore Masterman is not acting directly under the orders of the Air Ministry with regard to the enforcement of the Air Clauses of the Peace Treaty. Marshal Foch has been deputed by the Allies to supervise the Military and Air Clauses of the Treaty, and Air Commodore Masterman, as head of the Inter-Allied Aeronautical Commission of Control reports to Marshal Foch, who refers to the Council of Ambassadors as he sees fit. Air Commodore Masterman is, of course, an officer of the Royal Air Force, and he furnishes weekly reports to the Air Ministry on the progress of his work under the Inter-Allied Commission.

Mr. PALMER: Is the right hon. Gentleman still fully convinced that 12,000 aeroplanes will safely arrive in this country?

Mr. CHURCHILL: No, Sir. The Government intend that they shall be broken down on the spot, reduced to produce, and disposed of in the best possible manner.

Mr. BILLING: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware of the enormous commercial value to Great Britain of these large bomb-carrying aeroplanes? Will he offer them to those desiring to introduce a commercial service in this country?

Colonel LOWTHER: Is it not a fact that all the clauses of the Treaty have been kept? Did not the Leader of the House give the House an assurance to that effect?

Mr. CHURCHILL: I said nothing in conflict with that. No doubt there are minor irregularities in the execution, but we are not confronted with a definite refusal to carry out the purposes of the Treaty.

Colonel L0WTHER: Is the refusal to surrender all the paraphenalia of war a minor irregularity?

Mr. CHURCHILL: I do not admit that they are refusing. There are delays, and some of them unavoidable, owing to the chaotic conditions prevailing. We are not confronted with any direct refusal or repudiation of the obligations of the Treaty.

Mr. BILLING: May I have an answer to my question?

Mr. CHURCHILL: If the hon. Member is likely to be a purchaser, he should communicate with the Disposal Branch of the Ministry of Munitions.

AFGHAN PEACE NEGOTIATIONS.

Colonel YATE: (by Private Notice) asked the Secretary of State for India whether he can give the House any information regarding the Afghan conversations?

Mr. MONTAGU: The Viceroy informs me that the conversations at Mussoorie have been temporarily suspended, as both parties have found it necessary to refer to their respective
Governments for further instructions The principal British delegate has proceeded to Simla to consult the Government of India, while the Afghan delegates are communicating with their Government by telegraph.

Colonel YATE: Can the right hon. Gentleman also say anything with regard to the present state of affairs in the Afghan border?

Mr. MONTAGU: My hon. and gallant Friend will have seen from the newspapers that there have been raids on the frontier, but whether by Afghans, or by insurgents, or with the authority of the Afghan Government, I cannot say. Strong representations have been made to the delegates at Mussoorie, and that is one of the points on which they are in communication with their Government.

Oral Answers to Questions — FLOATING DEBT.

NEW GOVERNMENT BONDS.

CHANCELLOR'S APPEAL.

Mr. ASQUITH: (by Private Notice) asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether the calculation in his Budget speech, that the estimated surplus of £234,000,000 in the current financial year would provide a sum of about £70,000,000 for reduction of Floating Debt, on the assumption that no part of the liabilities maturing within the year will be renewed or funded, was intended to convey the impression that he does not contemplate any kind of funding operation during the year, and whether he also intended to rule out any early issue of National Savings Bonds as advocated by the National Savings Assembly in January last?

The CHANCELLOR of the EX CHEQUER (Mr. Chamberlain): I should have been very glad to meet the wishes of the National Savings Assembly by placing some form of National Savings Bonds "on tap," to supplement War Savings Certificates for purposes of the Savings Movement. But in existing monetary conditions I came to the conclusion that the moment was inopportune for such issue, and in any case I do not think it would be desirable, in view of the Housing Bonds campaign which is now in progress.
In answer to the first part of the question, it was certainly not my intention in my Budget speech to rule out the possibility of funding. But I believe that it will be generally agreed that the time has not yet come for any large funding operation and especially for permanent funding as distinguished from conversion of the Floating Debt into longer dated maturities. But now that provision has been made in the Budget for a contribution out of the Revenue of £234,000,000 this year and some £300,000,000 next year for redemption and cancellation of debt, it is possible and proper to take steps to effect a further reduction of the Floating Debt by the offer for public subscription of a new form of Government issue, the entire proceeds of which will be available for reducing Floating Debt.
I have accordingly decided to offer for subscription, on and after Monday next, 3rd May, a new Government Bond. The terms of the issue will be as follows:—
A five-fifteen year Treasury Bond, issue price—par. Interest payable half-yearly on 1st May and 1st November. The Bond will be repayable at par on 1st May, 1935, but there will be an option, both to the Treasury and to the holder, on giving one year's notice in April, 1924, or in any subsequent April up to and including April, 1933, to secure repayment at par on the 1st May, 1925, or any subsequent 1st May up to and including 1st May, 1934.
The Bond will carry interest at the minimum rate of 5 per cent. per annum, and will also carry additional interest payable during the period ending 1st May, 1925, as follows:—
If and when during any half-year ended the 1st May or 1st November, the Treasury Bills issued to the public were sold to them at an average rate of discount exceeding 5½ per cent, and under 6½ per cent. per annum, then additional interest will be payable on the interest date next succeeding such 1st May or 1st November at the rate of 1 per cent. per annum.
If and when such average rate of discount on Treasury Bills was 6½ per cent. per annum or over, then the additional interest will be at the rate of 2 per cent. per annum.
The first interest payment on 1st November, 1920, will represent interest from the date of purchase at the rate of
5 per cent. per annum plus additional interest at the rate of 2 per cent. per annum, i.e., 3½ per cent. for the half-year. The Bonds will remain on issue till further notice. The entire proceeds of the issue will be applied to reduction of the Floating Debt.
The House will see that the arrangement regarding interest is designed to protect the holder of the Bond against capital depreciation when rates for short money are high, while at the same time the taxpayer is protected against the burden of paying a higher rate of interest than 5 per cent. over a long period. This arrangement will also, it is hoped, prevent the new issue from causing further capital depreciation upon existing Government issues.
It is common ground to men of all parties and all schools of thought that every effort should be made to deal with the problem of the Floating Debt. I have done all that I think possible in the way of taxation, and I now appeal to the public, and in particular to holders of Treasury Bills, to second the efforts which are being made in this year's Budget to grapple with our financial problems, by making a liberal response to this call for subscriptions to the new Treasury Bonds.

Sir F. FLANNERY: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether the Income Tax will be deducted at the time of payment in connection with this new issue?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I think so.

SAN REMO CONFERENCE.

Mr. ASQUITH: I would like to ask the Leader of the House whether a statement with regard to the Conference at San Remo will be made by the Prime Minister to-morrow, and, if so, what procedure will be adopted?

Mr. BONAR LAW: I know that the House would desire a statement as soon as possible, and I am sure that the Prime Minister would also wish to make it as soon as he can. I had a telegram from him just as he was leaving San Remo asking my view as to the date. Unfortunately, he has been two days on the road, and I have not got a reply. He will arrive to-night, and I think it is possible he will make a statement to-morrow. I hope I
shall be able to make an announcement on the Adjournment, and, if so, I think the best form of procedure would be to move the Adjournment of the House immediately after Questions.

BILL PRESENTED.

HOUSE OF COMMONS AND MUNICIPAL CORPORATIONS (QUALIFICATION OF CLERGYMEN) BILL,

"to remove the disqualification of clerks in holy orders and other ministers of religion as Members of the House of Commons and as municipal councillors," presented by Mr. FREDERICK GREEN; supported by Lieutenant-Colonel Burgoyne, Captain Moreing, Mr. Reginald Nicholson, and Colonel Yate; to be read a second time upon Friday, 14th May, and to be printed. [Bill 90.]

PORT OF PORTSMOUTH FLOATING BRIDGE BILL,

Reported, with Amendments; Report to lie upon the Table.

PRIVATE BILLS (GROUP C),

Captain STARKEY reported from the Committee on Group C of Private Bills; That, for the convenience of parties, the Committee had adjourned till Monday next, at Twelve of the Clock.

Report to lie upon the Table.

HALIFAX CORPORATION BILL,

Reported, with Amendments [Title amended]; Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.

LEIGH CORPORATION BILL,

Reported, with Amendments; Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.

SUTTON COLDFIELD CORPORATION BILL,

Reported, with Amendments, from the Local Legislation Committee; Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.

MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.

That they have passed a Bill, intituled, " An Act to provide for the redemption of the debentures issued by the Humber Commercial Railway and Dock Company and for an increase of the rent payable by the Great Central Railway Company under the lease of the Humber Commercial Railway and Dock Company's undertaking." [Humber Commercial Railway and Dock Bill [Lords.]

Humber Commercial Railway and Dock Bill [Lords].

Read the First time; and referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills.

HUDDERSFIELD CORPORATION (GENERAL POWERS) BILL.

Reported, with Amendments; Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.

STANDING COMMITTEES (CHAIRMEN'S PANEL).

Sir SAMUEL ROBERTS: reported from the Chairman's Panel; That they had appointed Mr. Turton to act as Chairman of Standing Committee C (in respect of the Ecclesiastical Tithe Rent-charge (Rates) Bill); Mr. T. P. O'Connor to act as Chairman of Standing Committee B (in respect of the Imperial War Museum Bill), in place of Mr. Brace; and Mr. Mount to act as Chairman of Standing Committee D (in respect of the Trade Union Ballot Bill).
Report to lie upon the Table.

SELECTION (STANDING COMMITTEES).

STANDING COMMITTEE A.

Sir SAMUEL ROBERTS: reported from the Committee of Selection; That they had discharged the following Members from Standing Committee A: Dr. Addison and Sir Kingsley Wood.

STANDING COMMITTEE B.

Sir SAMUEL ROBERTS: further reported from the Committee; That they had discharged the following Members from Standing Committee B: Dr. Addison, Mr. Baldwin, Sir Eric Geddes, and Mr. Neal.
Reports to lie upon the Table.

STANDING ORDERS,

Resolutions reported from the Select Committee:

1. "That, in the case of the London County Council (Tramways and Improvements), Petition for Bill, Standing Order 22 ought not to be dispensed with:—That the parties be permitted to proceed with their Bill, on condition that all the provisions as to Tramways, to which Standing Order 22 relates and has not been complied with, be struck out of the Bill:—That the Committee on the Bill do report how far such Order has been complied with.

2." That, in the case of the Middlesex County Council (Tramways and Improvements), Petition for Bill, StandOrder 22 ought not to be dispensed with:—That the parties be permitted to proceed with their Bill on condition that all the provisions as to Tramways, to which Standing Order 22 relates and has not been complied with, be struck out of the Bill:—That the Committee on the Bill do report how far such Order has been complied with."

Resolutions agreed to.

Orders of the Day — WAYS AND MEANS.

[19TH APRIL].

Order read for consideration of Twentieth and Twenty-first Resolution.

Resolutions reported.

Orders of the Day — Excess Profits Duty.

"20. That—

(a) Excess profits duty under Part III of the Finance (No. 2) Act, 1915, as amended or extended by any subsequent enactment, shall, unless Parliament otherwise determines, be charged for any accounting period ending on or after the fifth day of August, nineteen hundred and twenty, and before the fifth day of August, nineteen hundred and twenty-one; and
(b) Excess Profits Duty shall be an amount equal to sixty per centum, instead of forty per centum, of the excess profits for any accounting period commencing on or after the first day of January, nineteen hundred and twenty, or in the case of an accounting period which has commenced before that date but ends after that date sixty per centum instead of forty per centum of so much of the excess profits as are apportioned to the part of the period commencing on that date; and
(c) the Excess Mineral Rights Duty under Section Forty-three of the Finance (No. 2) Act, 1915, as amended or extended by any subsequent enactment, shall be an amount equal to sixty per centum instead of forty per centum of the excess rent for any accounting year commencing on or after the first day of January, nineteen hundred and twenty, or in the case of an accounting year which has commenced before that date but ends after that date sixty per centum instead of forty per centum of so much of the excess rent as is apportioned to the part of the year commencing on that date."

Corporation Profits Tax.
21. That there shall be charged on the profits or gains arising in any period of account which includes any time after the thirty-first day of December, nineteen hundred and nineteen, from any trade, manufacture, concern in the nature of trade, or business carried on in any place whatsoever by a corporate body incorporated by or under the laws of the United Kingdom, or carried on in the United Kingdom by a corporate body incorporated otherwise than as aforesaid and on any income (other than any
such profits or gains as aforesaid) accruing from sources in any place whatsoever in any such period of account as aforesaid to a corporate body incorporated by or under the laws of the United Kingdom, or any such income accruing from sources in the United Kingdom in any such period of account as aforesaid to a corporate body incorporated otherwise than as aforesaid, a tax of five per cent. of the profits, gains, or income.

Twentieth Resolution read a Second time.

Mr. G. TERRELL: I beg to move to leave out Paragraphs (a) and (b).
If my Amendment be carried, the effect will be to strike out completely the Excess Profits Duty from the present year's Budget. This duty was introduced at a time of great emergency.

Sir F. BANBURY: On a point of Order. I understand that the hon. Member is moving to leave out Paragraphs (a) and (b). I have an Amendment in Paragraph (6), and I desire to ask you to put the question so as to safeguard my Amendment.

Mr. SPEAKER: I will consider that matter before I put the question. I do not think that it is necessary to safeguard Amendments at this stage. Of course, in Committee the Chairman would naturally do so, but this is not the Committee Stage. It is the Report Stage of certain Resolutions upon which the Bill is founded, and the procedure is different.

Sir F. BANBURY: My Amendment is an important one, because, while not doing away absolutely with the Excess Profits Duty, it does do away with the proposed increase. If it should happen that the House should prefer going on, at any rate for a year, with the duty as it was, and if the Amendment of the hon. Gentleman opposite were put " that Paragraphs (a) and (b) stand part of the Resolution," it would make it impossible to raise the question whether the increase should be payable or not.

Mr. SPEAKER: The right hon. Gentleman must remember that what we do now is not effective. The time for taking effective action is in Committee on the Bill. We have not yet even had the Bill introduced. This is a purely preliminary stage.

Mr. TERRELL: I was about to explain that, when this duty was originally introduced, it was stated by the then Chancel-
lor of the Exchequer to be necessary for the successful prosecution of the War. It was purely a War tax, and it was submitted to and accepted as a War tax by a class of the community who have been second to none in making every sacrifice that was necessary for the prosecution of the War. The War is over, and the time has come when the tax should be discontinued. The real objection to the tax is that it is so unfair, so unjust, and so oppressive. One would have thought that by this time everyone would have understood exactly how the tax operates, but I find, even since I put my Motion down, that among hon. Members there is a good deal of doubt how the tax is really levied. I think it necessary therefore to place on record exactly what the tax is and what is meant by the standard. The standard is the average profits which a firm or business earned two years prior to the war. That is taken as the datum line, and all profits over that standard are subject to the tax. It is very easy to see that a standard of that kind imposed at a time of great emergency, when it was expected that the war would last another year or two years at the very outside, could only prove to be a very rough-and-ready method of arriving at a datum line for the purpose of levying a tax. It has so proved, and, taking two firms with equal business and equal capital, one, which has the misfortune to have a bad standard is put at an enormous disadvantage as compared with the other, which has a good standard, and is liable for an enormous amount of taxation. I have some figures to illustrate my meaning, and I think it is necessary to quote them to the House. They are the figures of two firms each with £20,000 capital, one with a pre-war standard of £10,000 per year and the other with a pre-war standard of £2,200 per year. The firm with the big pre-war standard will pay in Excess Profits Duty £20,600 and the other firm with the low pre-war standard will pay £54,000. The firms in every respect may be of equal importance, doing an equal business, and yet one will be penalised by a total taxation of £33,500 over the period of the War. We all know that the cry of the trade unions and labour leaders throughout the War was for equality of sacrifice and equality of treatment. It was a very genuine cry, and I hope hon. Members will realise
now that there is a very genuine cry among producers and people engaged in commerce and business that they similarly should have equality of treatment.
I have some very simple figures as to how this tax hits a new business or a business without a pre-war standard which may have been bought by a man who has been demobilised from the Army. I take two businesses, each with £10,000 capital, and one with a pre-War standard of £5,000 and the other with no pre-War standard. We will assume that both businesses during the present year make £6,000 profit. The one with the pre-War standard of £5,000 will pay £480 Excess Profits Duty this year and the other without a pre-War standard will pay £2,800. That is most oppressive, most unfair, and it requires to be very drastically remedied. Many Members are in doubt about another matter. A manager or a director who is also a partner and happens to be in receipt of a commission as part of his remuneration, is personally held subject to the Excess Profits Duty; so that to-day a manager is tied down by his earnings in 1913. That also is most unfair. If you have a good pre-War standard, you are not so badly off, but if you have no pre-War standard or a bad pre-War standard, then you are treated must unjustly and most unfairly. I have received an enormous number of letters and telegrams from firms all over the country, many of them explaining in great detail their grievances to me, and all of them full of protest against any continuance of the tax. Some people imagine that all these firms are big financial people. That is not the case. Many of them are little men, who are struggling to make both ends meet, and some of the letters which I have received are really almost pathetic in their sense of grievance and injustice. Here is one man in a small business who says that in 1910 he put all his savings into purchasing a business. The first three years were difficult, and he scarcely knew whether he would sink or swim, but in 1913 he was just beginning to make headway. He worked continuously from 7.30 a.m. to 9.30 p.m., and he says he feels the pinch most that his competitor is working side by side with him, an old-established business, with two or three good pre-War years and a good pre-War standard, and that he is abso-
lutely free from Excess Profits Duty, while the writer is heavily oppressed. He says: "I bore it with patience when our country was in danger, but it knocks the heart out of one altogether now." That is one class of case, and here is another, and the two are a fair sample of a great number which I have had brought to my notice. This man says his pre-War standard was nil, and he has a cabinet works. He entered into contracts for hospital furnishing, and he made a profit which made him liable for £600 Excess Profits Duty. He put the whole of that profit into his business to enable him to carry on Army contracts. He has only been able to pay the Treasury £100 out of the £600, and he is being pressed by the Treasury for payment of the balance. He says:
I have worked like a slave during the War. My eldest boy gave his life, my second boy is permamently wounded, to say nothing of the third, who was a flying officer, and now the War is over, the only recompense I get is to be driven into the bankruptcy court.
Those two letters show the injustice of continuing this tax, and they also show that it requires either complete repeal or very drastic amendment. The injustice of it is further shown by the speech which was made the other day by the Chairman of the Textile Corporation at their statutory meeting. Here is an extract from that speech, and it has reference to the present Budget:
 The current Budget proposals, with the increased Excess Profits Duty, have made it safe for old-established firms like ourselves and made it almost impossible for younger firms to exist and futile for new firms to commence, and as the Excess Profits Duty has the effect of raising prices of all commodities, we as a merchant firm will have to pay more for our products and sell them for more, which will have the effect of increasing our profits per quantity of material handled.
In a few words perhaps I may be allowed to give the House some little explanation as to how the duty operates, and to show that a firm which has once earned its standard, if that standard is a good standard, is in a very superior position compared with a firm which is struggling perhaps with a low standard and with difficulties. Directly you have earned your standard, you can spend money freely, because, whatever you spend, 60 per cent. of it comes out of the pockets of the Government. You can indulge in
repairs, you can develop your business by advertising, you can prepare expensive catalogues, and if your employés want more money, well, the Government pays 60 per cent., and why quarrel with your employés for the sake of the 40 per cent.? You have also this advantage, that you can defeat your competitors by selling at less than cost. That is one of the operations of the Excess Profits Duty which very few people understand. A case came to my notice some time ago of a firm who wanted to extend their trade in a particular market. They had earned their standard— and it was at the time when the tax was 80 per cent.—and they sold a large quantity of instruments at less than cost price. They got into the market against their competitors, who were perhaps not so favourably placed. The Government paid 80 per cent. of that loss. Is that fair competition? Then people wonder why the Excess Profits Duty adds to the cost of production, but it must. If you are tendering, in the ordinary way you would tender, perhaps, for 10 per cent. or 15 per cent. profit, but now you say, "The Government want 60 per cent. of that, so we had better make a profit, instead of 10 per cent. or 15 per cent., of 20 per cent. or 30 per cent," and in that way the cost goes on to the goods, and the consumer pays the tax, and pays it in the most wasteful and extravagant form. We claim that the time has come when that tax should be stopped. I might quote one other instance, which was referred to in a speech by a former Member of this House, Sir John Simon, who said the tax had been of the greatest benefit to lawyers, and he knew it. He had benefited by it, because amongst his clients there were people who had gone to law when they had got doubtful cases, and they said they could take the risk because if they lost their case the Government paid 80 per cent. of the loss. I should have thought that that was almost sufficient evidence in itself to show the House that this tax is most undesirable.
You have the position to-day that the country is crying out for lower prices, but when the Government continue a tax of this kind it means that they are keeping up prices. It may be their policy to keep up prices. It is easy to see that by keeping up prices the grand debt is easier to handle, but if high prices ease the task of the Government, why stop profiteering? We know, of course, that
prices must be kept down, and the first step towards getting prices to anything like their proper level, in my judgment, is to get rid of this taxation, which is not direct taxation, and which is not certain; you do not know exactly how much you are liable for, and you have to cover yourself by putting on a very large sum to cover all possible contingencies. The tax has excited throughout the whole country the greatest feeling of hostility. The term "excess profits" is suggestive that a man has been profiteering. In some cases he has been profiteering, perhaps. To pay a large sum in Income Tax, I suppose, is regarded as being meritorious, but to pay a large sum in Excess Profits Duty, I should imagine as a rule people would prefer to say nothing about it. At any rate, a great deal of hostility is felt to the tax, and it is safe to say that there never was a more unpopular tax. Manufacturers were called upon in the stress of the War to make sacrifices. They surrendered their workshops, they submitted to Government control, they did everything which they were asked to do to help the nation in its emergency, and there was no quibbling such as we have heard from some of the trade union leaders who stayed at home. The moment the Armistice was signed, the trade union leaders wanted their pre-war practices restored to them, and they got them restored, but the Government now want to continue the War sacrifices as against the manufacturing and trading community. Let me remind the House of the statement the Chancellor of the Exchequer made last year when he was introducing the Budget. He said the Excess Profits Duty was a War tax—
 It was imposed under the stress of War …It is open to many objections, but it was a rough and ready method of justice which Parliament, in its then, happily, not very critical mood, accepted with out too much difficulty.… There are great objections to it.… It operates with unfairness and inequality as between firms with a good pre-War standard of profit and firms with a poor pre-War standard.… It has encouraged wasteful expenditure.… A flat rate tax of 80 per cent.… acts as a great deterrent to enterprise and … to new development. I do not wish under these circumstances to continue the tax a moment beyond what is necessary."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 30th April, 1919; Cols. 204 and 205, Vol. 115.]

The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER (Mr. Chamberlain): Hear,
hear. I do not depart from a word of that.

Mr. TERRELL: There could be no greater condemnation of the tax than the words which my right hon. Friend then used. We are now considering the Budget for the year 1920–21, and in his statement the other day he stated that he was to get £220,000,000 from the Excess Profits Duty, and that of that sum £10,000,000 would be the increased revenue by raising the rate from 40 per cent. to 60 per cent. Therefore, I suggest to the House that the total amount the Chancellor will get by the continuance of this tax is only £30,000,000. The other £190,000,000 are the arrears from last year and previous years, which will come to him without any renewal of this tax whatever. I do trust that that point will be made clear, because from the Budget Statement as it stands, I venture to think the House considers that these Resolutions have to be passed, otherwise there will be a shortage of £220,000,000 in the Revenue for the year. Nothing of the sort. The shortage will be £30,000,000, and no more. Are we going to re-impose a thoroughly bad tax for the sake of £30,000,000? It is less than £30,000,000, because the new Corporations Tax is estimated to produce £50,000,000, but £15,000,000 less during the period that the Excess Profits Tax is in operation. Therefore, the £30,000,000, unless I am mistaken in this, will, on the imposition of the Corporations Tax, be reduced to £15,000,000. A surplus is estimated of £234,000,000, which will be available for the general reduction of Debt this year. That is on the basis again, I understand, that the debt is wiped off in 26 years. Are we obliged to wipe it off in 26 years? There is no necessity for raising this money at all. Striking out the Excess Profits Tax will reduce by £15,000,000 or £20,000,000 the balance which is available for the general reduction of Debt, and, as against that, you have got the margins on the Treasury Estimates. We are accustomed year after year to finding that the Treasury have underestimated. We find year after year a surplus on all Treasury figures, and it is likely that this year we shall have a surplus on Treasury figures.
I do urge, for the reasons I have given, that the time has come when this tax should be completely dropped. There are some who say that you cannot drop it
completely; they are shivering in their shoes about the War Profits Tax. I am not thinking about those people. I am thinking of the small trader, the small manufacturer, who is to-day oppressed with this tax. I am not thinking of the man who has made his profit and banked his money. If that man wants to continue to put the burden on my back by this Excess Profits Tax, then, in my turn, I shall help others to put the burden of the War Profits Tax, if such a tax is introduced, on his back. We will have equality of treatment; we will have equality of sacrifice. I do trust that my right hon. Friend will turn a sympathetic ear to the appeal which I have made to him. I am told that in his Statement the other day he said that he would stand or fall by this tax. I do not really think that he can have taken that sort of obstinate determination. I have watched my right hon. Friend's career for many years with the greatest interest, and, I might almost say, affection. I have followed him in his policy, and I look upon him to-day as the head of the Exchequer, as the head of the business part of our Government. It is not a business proposition to say, "Here are my proposals. Before they are discussed in detail, I will stand or fall by them." I am perfectly certain that my right hon. Friend had no thought of that kind in his mind. I look upon him as one with a great name who has done in the past much valuable work for the country, and I am sure he will continue to serve the country in the future. But I do hope he has not made up his mind that whether this tax is sound or unsound, whether it is just or unjust, he will stand or fall by it. I do not think that was his intentions, and I do think I have shown that it is an unjust tax, that it excites the greatest amount of hostility from every part of the country, and I hope he will see his way to withdraw the tax entirely in the terms of my Amendment.

Lieut.-Colonel Sir J. NORTONGRIFFITHS: I rise to support my hon. Friend's Amendment, and, in doing so, it is my intention to be very brief, as I understand a great number of hon. Members wish to speak on this question. I support my hon. Friend's Amendment because I believe, and I think I believe as whole-heartedly as the Chancellor of
the Exchequer himself, that the tax is an unsound one, that it is not the best method of obtaining or collecting the revenue, that it is a tax which we had to resort to owing to the War, and I am perfectly convinced that in his mind, as it must be in the minds of all hon. Members, a better means can be found of collecting the revenue required. On Wednesday last I made four main points against this Excess Profits Tax. The first point I made—and in looking through the OFFICIAL REPORT one sees in almost every speech the same point—was the inequality of the tax as between old businesses and new ones. We have all received hundreds, and many, I believe, thousands, of letters on the subject. I do not propose to read them, because nothing bores the House more than the reading of letters; but I will read one, because it is a typical case of the small man and how unjust the tax is to him. I have a case here which I have investigated, and early this morning went down to see the works myself It is a business of three partners, with a combined capital of £9,000. The three partners—and all served in the War in one way or another—put in their whole time at this business, and the total income, after paying their staff, rents and expenses, is £3,000, of which this year there will be paid £1,200 in Excess Profits Tax, leaving £1,800 to be divided among three men with families, and out of that sum each has to pay a considerable amount of Income Tax. The business was started in 1913, and with the combined efforts of the partners could be increased. Three of the staff are paid in salaries £500 each, while each partner draws £600, and they do all the principal work. When going into that business, if they had had a little more freedom— not to squander the money, but to put it into their business so that it might develop— they would have been able to ship goods out of this country; whereas, at the present time, it is all they can do to keep their customers in this country going.
The next point I made was the restriction it imposes on trade and its expansion. I have had a resolution sent me, among others, by the Master Bookbinders' Asso ciation, as follows:
 That this meeting of the Master Bookbinders' Association protests against the continuation of the Excess Profits Duty in its present form, owing to its incidence being
particularly severe upon the progress of an industry such as book-binding, which has a low pre-War standard. The association suggests that a development of the Corporations Tax is far preferable to a continuance of the Excess Profits Tax.
I think I am right in stating that most hon. Members of this House have been swamped with letters and telegrams from their own constituents, and it is their duty to represent truly the interests of their constituents. If there are Members representing industrial constituencies, it is their duty to do what they really conscientiously feel in regard to this particular measure. If they feel there is another and a better method of obtaining the money, and they really, after close study, believe that this tax is bad for trade and industry, that it is a corrupt method of taxation, then I say, without hesitation, it is our duty, whether we like it or not— and personally I loathe doing it—to press this Division in the lobbies.
My third point was its incentive to extravagance, and I dealt with that very fully. My fourth point was the liability of it being passed on to the consumer. In that respect I desire, if I may, to give what has actually happened in my own case. We invited tenders for a very close competitive work in South America, and in getting quotations, which all public works' contractors have to do, it is our business to test the market. We got quotations for something like seventy-four different articles connected with railway-development work in particular. Since the Budget speech was made by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, in the case of more than 40 per cent. of those tenders we have had a supplementary letter informing us that, in view of that statement, they must add 10 per cent., or whatever it is, to their previous offer. We cannot, of course, until we get a tender, book definitely the material we want, which we should like to do, to cover the period of two or three years' work. Our business is not to speculate in the markets, but simply to secure ourselves by fair prices, and not to take any risks. I do not think I am overstating the case when I say that this proposal is causing the gravest anxiety throughout the country in trade and industry. I am perfectly sure that the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who comes from an industrial centre, a portion of which I for some time represented— I refer to Birmingham—will appreciate that point. Doubtless he has had all sorts of representations made to
him like the rest of us. It is not overstating in the case— and after all, the proof of the pudding is in the eating— by saying, and it is proved, that this proposal is an absolutely unsound method of taxation and against the best interests of the country. One might talk for an hour or for a couple of days and not sum up the case more briefly or accurately than in these few words. I most earnestly appeal to the right hon. Gentleman in this matter. I know men who are struggling to get back to pre-War conditions, who hate profiteering, and dislike having to add things on to the cost of production; and I do beg the right hon. Gentleman to do his utmost to meet the views shown to exist, not only in this House, but in the country.
May I add a statement from a gentleman who I believe is still a Member of the Government? I refer to Sir Joseph Maclay, head of the Ministry of Shipping. He was speaking at the launch of a big vessel quite recently—and it was quite by accident that I picked up this paragraph from the " Shipping World "—and Sir Joseph, we all know, is one of the leading business men of the country, one of the magnates of industry, and of the commercial life of the country—speaking on 21st April, he said—and I will give the most important points, for they go to the root of the case:
He believed that this tax would have a very serious effect upon industry in this country. Instead of seeing a reduction of the tax as they had anticipated, it had been increased. It would materially hamper the trade of the country. He did not think that it was too late for serious reconsideration by the Chancellor to be given to the matter.
Then Sir Joseph got to the bedrock of the matter—
He did not expect any great improvement in the trade of the country unless they replaced a condition of uncertainty by a state of absolute certainty.
It is this uncertainty which is trying everybody and makes the position difficult. I know one particular case in which an order for two ships was on the point of being signed: it was cancelled in view of the Budget. This thing is disturbing everybody. It is my business to go down to one of the biggest shipyards in the country. I was there recently, since the Budget speech. It was almost agony to see so much uncertainty and uneasiness The feeling is, " What is the good of trying; what is the good of trying to get back to normal conditions under the
circumstances?" And this at a time when we could if we would get that degree of certainty in this country which is desirable and, by greater strides with that certainty, go ahead in a way better than anyone can conceive towards pre-war conditions and to that pre-eminent position which we held in the world before the War. Virtually we have no competitors. The world is demanding our goods I submit that if the Chancellor would only look at the matter from this point of view, then by encouraging the trade and industry of this country you could get from the foreigner half, if not more, by profits on our goods—perhaps almost enough—to redeem the whole of the War debt!
There are many alternatives. I am not going to suggest them. All I would say is you have only to study United States or Canada and find alternatives there which would do away with the Excess Profits Tax. Again, it is certain if the Excess Profits Tax were abolished the whole tax would not be lost, as many people imagine. Income Tax and Super-tax would be payable on a much larger sum, and any difference would thus be made up. I am not that sort of optimist recently described and said to be a Scotsman wandering through the United States with a corkscrew. But I am certain of one thing, that if the Chancellor will give the country some statement on this particular point, so as not to make us who loath doing it press this matter to a Division, then he will not spoil that which otherwise will be a brilliant career, and the record of one of the most wonderful Governments this country has ever had in its history. Compared to the Governments of other countries, the Government has turned out a wonderful amount of legislative and other work. We all admit the wonder of it. This proposal is a big, black, blot on the Budget, and on that record. I ask the right hon. Gentleman not to turn down our proposal, but to give the matter one further consideration, and try to relieve some of us of the unpleasantness of having to go into the Lobby against the Government, who, I believe, desire the general development as well as any Member of this House.

Mr. FILDES: I believe in circumstances like this it is usual for a new Member to claim the indulgence of the House, and I may say that such indulgence was
never more necessary than at this moment. For the first time in my life, I appreciate to the full the true pathos of a letter which a soldier-boy in Palestine wrote to his mother in Wigan. He said:
Dear mother,—I am in Bethlehem, where Christ was born; and I wish to heaven I was in Wigan, where I was born.
May I, as a new Member, say how much I was impressed by the very admirable and lucid way in which the Chancellor of the Exchequer presented his statement to the House. Of course when you come to think of it, it is an obvious thing, and a thing which we have a right to expect, because if there is a gentleman who by birth and tradition who should be expert in the production and application of this screw it is the right hon. Gentleman. It was a great surprise to me when the right hon. Gentleman at the beginning of the Debate came to the House consisting of over 700 Members, and without hearing any possible suggestions from his colleagues in the House, intimated that he was about to stand or fall by his proposition. Standing, Mr. Speaker, as I understand it, is a very wearying performance, and I was surprised, in view of the Indian experience of the right hon. Gentleman, to hear the word "fall" come so glibly from his lips. I would like to address my remarks to the right hon. Gentleman in the capacity with which he has endeared himself to this House—that of a sitting Member.
The origin of this tax, he will, I think, agree is a wrong one. There have been too many objectionable interpretations. What does it mean? It means this: when War was declared the Chancellor of that day intimated that the wealthy plutocrats of this country were going to be placed in a stronger position than their poorer brethren. The position appears to me to be one of this kind: hon. Members will recollect that the theory on which this tax was based was that we were anxious to get money out of the men who had made money out of the War. The position that the Chancellor takes up is, that taking our wealthy plutocrats, take Messrs. Coats, say, they are at liberty, before they are called upon to pay a penny of Excess Profits Tax, to make at least something like £3,000,000. Is it fair, I ask? Supposing in 1917 or 1918 some opposition to that great combine had been contemplated? What is the position?
We find that the newly competing business is allowed a certain vague amount on its capital only, and after that is liable to this very serious tax. There is a point I would like him to make in that connection, and it is this: We are all out, so far as possible, to get rid of— shall I say?—the overbearing power of the trusts. It is as certain as the sun rises, and I believe the right hon. Gentleman will agree, that sooner or later the very inflated values attaching to every commodity in use in the world will fall. In the cotton trade, at the Armistice, yarns fell inside of two months something like 2s. 6d. a lb. The point I wish to make is this: unless firms who are restarting business to-day are allowed to accumulate some reserve to be ready for this drop, the final result of this legislation is going to be that the wealthy firms, the firms with a big pre-war standard, will be in a more strongly entrenched position than ever, and their competitors of more recent date will be wiped out and snowed under by the loss that is certain to ensue.
5.0 P.M.
I am not concerned with the big men, and, like everybody else I suppose in this House, I have been inundated with details of hard cases. I have one case which is typical of many. An officer received a gratuity of £850 from the War Office, and he was a wounded man. His father lent him £1,000, and on the joint guarantee of his father and himself he obtained a further sum of £500 from the bank and started business. I appeal to the right hon. Gentleman that it is unfair under circumstances like those that men who have come back from the War, where they have been largely engaged in defending the property of men with a high pre-war standard, and the only message of comfort the right hon. Gentleman has to give them is to say that he will stand or fall by taking 60 per cent. of anything they make over and above the beggarly allowance the Treasury allow!
There is just one other point and it is this. There was a warehouse destroyed in Wood Street, London, and I think this case is within the cognisance of most hon. Members. A Zeppelin raid destroyed a large warehouse, and the firm occupying that warehouse did not go on with the business, but two of the managers started business. They had been in business only 12 months when one of them was taken into the Army and the other into the
Navy. Last year they came back to start business and they are faced with the welcome news in the right hon. Gentleman's Budget that after the whole series of disasters they have suffered they are met with this beggarly allowance and above that the Chancellor of the Exchequer will claim 60 per cent. to help to pay the cost of defending the gentlemen with the huge pre-War standards. When this War was declared in 1914 the people whose interests had to be largely. defended, apart from personal considerations such as ourselves, our wives and children, were that landowners of this country and the pre-War plutocrats. I say that it is unfair to throw on returned soldiers and the men who have recently started business the additional cost of paying the debts which might legitimately be charged to the firms with large pre-War standards.
I would like to be allowed to make two suggestions. I understand there is a Motion coming along to the effect that it shall be permissible to the Treasury to make an arrangement for extended payments of this tax, but that will not meet the situation. It may meet it with regard to the past, but what about the man who cannot possibly pay to-day if under this tax he is simply incurring fresh liability for the Treasury? I appeal to the right hon. Gentleman most earnestly, and with all the intensity at my command, and I ask him if he can see his way to alter at least the standard, that is, the datum line of this tax. Why not start it at £2,000 a year and say that if a man or a firm had only made £2,000 they, at any rate, should only be liable for the ordinary tax and Super-tax? Above that I would like to see the right hon. Gentleman make a further concession, and make them liable for the ordinary tax.
In view of the increased cost of living it is within my own knowledge that there are thousands of perfectly heart-breaking cases of men who have had the heart knocked out of them altogether because they feel it is hopeless. I am speaking of the little man with only £1,000 or less. He is the man who is very hardly hit by this proposed legislation. No man has condemned this kind of legislation more than the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and when he replies I should be extremely grateful if he could give us some information on this point. I may have misunderstood the right hon. Gentleman, but, as
I gathered, he seemed to state that had he known that the reduction from 80 per cent. to 40 per cent. would not lead to increased trade and prosperity in this country, he would not have made that reduction. I fail to follow that argument. I thank the House very sincerely for listening to these imperfect remarks. I am afraid that I have not expressed myself very admirably, but I am intensely anxious that the poorer section of the community should be protected from the very harsh incidence of this taxation.

Mr. A. GREEN: I have listened with much interest to the speeches of the Mover and Seconder of this Amendment, but I fail to see any reasonable grounds why the House should accept the proposition which has been put forward for a reduction of this duty because we have not so far had presented to the House any alternative proposition which would raise that sum of money, which is so urgently needed at the present time, and, in my opinion, there is no time so opportune in our commercial life as the present moment for raising money which is so urgently required for the reduction of the Debt upon this country. I listened with admiration to the speech in which the Chancellor of the Exchequer introduced his Budget to the House, and it seemed to me to be a matter of great congratulation on the part of hon. Members that in the second year after the War the Chancellor of the Exchequer was able to budget for £1,300,000,000 in a manner which, in my opinion, is well within the capacity of this nation to pay if we, as a nation, realise our responsibilities, and masters and men pull together, and work together in that spirit which is so desirable in order that we may, as a nation, produce more and export more, and thus produce that wealth which is so essential to pay off this great debt. What are the suggestions put forward and the criticisms which have been made upon the Budget? One was that the Chancellor of the Exchequer need not this year budget for a reduction of the Debt by £230,000,000, and that he could very well afford to wait a few years longer before he need attempt any reduction of the Debt.

Mr. TERRELL: I do not wish to interrupt my hon. Friend, but that is not my
case. I did not say that the Chancellor of the Exchequer should not budget for a reduction of the Debt, but my point was that the amount was excessive. The Chancellor of the Exchequer should certainly budget for a considerable reduction of debt, say £200,000,000 or £210,000,000, but £230,000,000 is excessive.

Mr. GREEN: That comes to the same thing. With great respect I submit that the Chancellor of the Exchequer might very well, having regard to commercial considerations and the condition of this country and the Continent, have budgetted for a still further reduction without seriously interfering with the commercial prosperity of this country. I have recently returned from a commercial tour in France, Switzerland, Germany, and Austria, and I have had my agents there, and one is still out in Belgium and another in Germany. I have had their reports, and I have seen a lot of things myself. I have been in communication and in touch with the leaders of commerce in those areas, and from what I have seen, and from the reports which have been made to me, I am satisfied that those countries are not commercially in a position to compete with this nation at present, and if as a nation we pull together in the right and proper manner, we have an opportunity of building up our commerce and trade and industry in such a manner that it will be the greatest and most glorious trade that this nation has ever had. But if we fail to take that opportunity; if by strikes, on the one hand, or by differences of opinion on the other hand, we have quarrels between masters and men, then a proposal of this character is calculated to bring forth agitation from the workers, who are not satisfied with the present condition of things; and if we fail as masters and men to work together and take advantage of the opportunity which presents itself, then we, as a nation, will be lacking, and as a House we shall be lacking, in our duty if we support this Amendment to-day.
Our opportunity is to-day, and each day that goes by that opportunity, as years go on, will get less and less. We can budget to-day for the payment of £230,000,000, but if that amount is left for another five years we could not pay off the same amount. Hon. Members recognise that we can pay off £230,000,000 this
year, but if we do not pay it this year, and if we leave any portion of it for another five years, then it would take considerably more to redeem the same amount of our national indebtedness. Further than that, in another five years it is quite possible that those areas which are now so devastated, and those nations which are not yet commercially in a position to compete with us, will then be competing very severely, and we shall be in a much worse position for reducing our National Debt, because we shall then be up against competition much more severe than that which exists to-day. The hon. Member who seconded this Amendment put forward cases of great hardship, and yet, in the same speech, he said that this tax was pressing upon the consumer because the manufacturer had to pay more for his materials, and prices had to be increased by 10 per cent. on account of the tax. While he speaks of cases of hardship and handicap to the manufacturers because the duty does not allow them to make that standard of profit which they used to make, he tells us that prices have increased by 10 per cent. on account of the duty! He referred also to the firm with a huge pre-war standard, and to their extravagant expenditure. I think that such a statement is a reflection upon our Income Tax surveyors. There may be isolated instances of the kind which the hon. Gentleman has named, but, speaking generally, I think we should find throughout the country that the Income Tax surveyors take careful account of the firms with which they have to deal; they compare the items which are contained in their books year by year, and if they find any extraordinary difference between one year and a previous year, then they naturally make further inquiry as to why it comes in. It is perfectly certain that, unless there is a reasonable explanation, these differences are not allowed, and that they are subject to the Excess Profits Duty. Then we have had the case of three partners who started in 1913, and also of those who served in the War. But what are the facts with regard to new businesses? The new business started to-day is entitled, before becoming liable to the Excess Profits Duty, to make 11 per cent., plus the directors' salaries, and so on. [HON. MEMBERS: "No, no!"] And, having regard to the difficulties in which
we find ourselves as a nation, I submit that the possibility of making 11 per cent. before becoming liable to the Excess Profits Duty, and then sharing with the Government what may remain to the extent of 40 per cent., is a matter upon which we ought to congratulate ourselves, having regard to the trials and troubles through which we have passed. We must be prepared to make sacrifices to help the nation, and the Chancellor of the Exchequer, in carrying through this Budget in a right and proper spirit, in order that we may generate a spirit of contentment right throughout the country, and enable us as a nation to recover our position financially. This is a Budget for posterity. We must budget for posterity. We must take our share of the burden which exists to-day, and we must take it in a proper and reasonable spirit, prepared to make the sacrifices for the sake of our children. We ought not to shirk our burdens in any way at this particular moment. We should not seek to shelve our burdens on to future generations, and on these grounds I hope this House will support the Chancellor of the Exchequer.

The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. Baldwin): I do not suppose for a moment that those who support this Amendment would be prepared to see the abolition of the Excess Profits Duty as a whole. But it makes a very useful peg on which to hang a discussion which enables those who feel that the raising of the limit from 40 to 60 per cent. is something which should not be attempted, to bring into the discussion the questions of the small business man and the new business man, and to put it to the Government whether it is prepared to do anything to help them. I, for one, welcome this discussion to-day, because I think the more general the lines of our Debate on the Report stage of these Resolutions the better, reserving, as we should do, all points and all details regarding the Amendment of the law for the Committee stage of the Finance Bill which will come on later. I do not propose to speak at any great length this afternoon, but I think it may clear our minds if we consider for a moment what the Excess Profits Duty is, and why it was put on. It was put on at a time when the country needed money, when the necessity for money was really vital, and when it was felt throughout the country
that it was somewhat unreasonable, at such a time, for people to make more money than they had done in times of peace. That was the underlying feeling at the time the duty was put on. It was put on to serve the financial necessities of the nation. Some people speak as though the moment the War stopped, this duty ought also to have stopped. But suppose that the Excess Profits Duty actually lasted for a period of ten years, could anyone, looking back, and reflecting that we had been fighting for our lives during more than half that time, say that the statesmen of this age had treated the community unjustly in this country, because they had made a specific War tax last in such circumstances for a period of ten years? I do not believe it for a moment.
But it has not run for nearly ten years. This tax, if this Amendment be defeated, will be running into its seventh year. During the whole period when we were fighting, the average burden was 66 per cent. If the Chancellor of the Exchequer's scheme become law, the average burden since fighting ceased will have been 50 per cent. Last year the Chancellor of the Exchequer spoke about it being a "temporary duty," and much play has been made with those words, people talking as if the use of the word "temporary" meant that he was going to withdraw the tax at once. Of course, all would like to see the tax come off, and no one more than the right hon. Gentleman and myself. When, however, one is speaking of a temporary period during which a tax lasts, he can be held to refer to so short a period as, say, twelve months. Although it comes as a temporary tax, it is a temporary tax for a few years, and each year is bringing us nearer to the end of it. Hon. Members laugh, but we all know perfectly well that what is meant by a temporary period is the period during which the circumstances created by the War lasts, and we can all agree that this temporary period will come to an end when these circumstances disappear, and the tax itself can also then be ended. Why did my right hon. Friend reduce the duty last year instead of keeping it at 80 per cent.? Had he reduced it to 60 per cent. there would not have been any quarrel with the 60 per cent. this year, but, because he reduced it to 40 per cent.. people jumped
to the conclusion that the tax was coming to an end, and that all the profits they might in the future make would accrue to themselves. They are, therefore, suffering from a very natural reaction of disappointment. My right hon. Friend reduced the duty for two reasons. The first was that at the time it looked as if industry in this country was going through an extraordinarily difficult state of things. The conditions had been difficult, but it then looked as if they would be still more difficult, but he had no conception at the time he made the reduction of what the actual state of things in the commercial world would in fact be. He was also moved by the fact that the 80 per cent. rate had been in force for two years and had, quite apart from the onerous incidence of the tax, pressed with very great severity on all the businesses of this country, because they were needing at the time more money for working capital. We in the Government held that this reduction of the duty from 80 per cent. to 40 per cent. would relieve what we believed to be business difficulties immediately in front of us, and would also enable business men to do what many of us had found much difficulty in doing in the two years immediately preceding—it would enable them to increase the amount of working capital, to increase the amount of reserves, and also make it more easy for them to face the conditions into which they were running.
Before I come to the present position of the duty, I will remind hon. Members what happened when the duty had been running for two or three years in this country. It was seen then that the tax could not be a tax for only a year or two. It was seen that there were great inequalities of incidence, that there were a great many cases of real hardship. There are a great many cases of real hardship now, which it may pass the wit of man to remove, but there are also a great many which can be removed. I would remind hon. Members that in 1917, when the present Lord Privy Seal (Mr. Bonar Law) brought in his Budget, in which I was privileged to help him, a good many substantial concessions were made to meet the difficulties which had up to that time arisen, and the concessions made in the Budget have eased the situation even down to the present day. The two subjects that were tackled then were the question of the small busi-
ness man and the incidence of the duty on the new business man. The new man and the small man alike were helped by raising the percentage standard by 1 per cent., and then putting on 3 per cent. for the new capital subscribed. At the same time my right hon. Friend tackled the question of the small man, by giving additional relief to people whose pre-War standard was not more than £500, and where the profits involved were not more than £2,000. It was a very ingenious scheme, and it proved of the greatest benefit both to the new man and to the small man. As a result the small business man finds himself to-day in the position of being able to pay 60 per cent. Excess Profits Duty while retaining reductions considerably in excess of the pre-War standard. Since 1917 another three years have elapsed. That has brought into prominence fresh anomalies and the increasing strain to which some of the small and new businesses have been subjected by the great rise in prices, which makes it more difficult to find working capital, and makes more working capital necessary, and by the higher rate of interest for loans, and so forth. I have discussed this with my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and he is fully prepared in the Finance Bill to make substantial concessions to the small man and the new man. The House cannot, and I am sure will not, expect me to go more into detail at this moment, because we are discussing the principle. We are asked to vote now whether the Excess Profits Duty shall be abolished, and we may be asked to vote later on that the rate shall be reduced to 40 per cent. Such concessions as my right hon. Friend has in mind will require a great deal of working out, and will probably require interviews with the people chiefly interested. As hon. Members of experience know, it is no easy matter, in the first place, to arrive at a sound decision, and in the second place to get that sound decision embodied in a simple and easily understood form in an Act of Parliament.
I thought it well to follow the history of the Excess Profits Duty from the beginning, because I wanted to show that what is in my right hon. Friend's mind is on all fours with what has been done by the Government before, when the tax had been running two or three years. If it be possible to see where the shoe
pinches so as to cripple, then we try and relieve the pressure. The position to-day is that we ask this House for one more year, certainly—and beyond that we can give no pledge; no Government could— for one more year to continue the Excess Profits Duty at the rate of 60 per cent. We ask the House, in the Division that is coming, to vote against the Amendment which has been moved, and to continue for another year the Excess Profits Duty. No reason, to my mind, has been given why this year the tax should be given up. I admit at once that a great many people in the country are at this moment very vocal. Hon. Members' letter-bags may be full of letters on this subject. My letter-bag has not been, but, perhaps, I shall get them after this Debate. I would, however, remind all my hon. Friends that the art of propaganda is improving very much. Whenever anything is proposed in this House that hits anybody or any group of people in the country, we hear about it very quickly, and the methods that are adopted are very skilful. The Press very often plays its part, anxious not to be behindhand, and in order to maintain our view we have sometimes to stand up to a very severe storm of criticism. When, however, you eliminate the very sources of complaint that we are going to try and eliminate, I am certain that the feeling is not either as unanimous or as deep-seated as hon. Members would have us believe.
Trade in this country to-day is in a very curious condition. People in business today are paying the most extraordinary prices for their raw materials and semi manufactured stuff. They are paying higher wages than ever they paid before, and they are selling their goods at incomparably higher prices—there may be exceptions, but I am speaking of the general run of business—and extraordinarily large profits are being made. That could not have been foreseen last year. A great many elements which have caused it were present, but there were other elements. The elements that might have interfered did not interfere to the extent anticipated. There is still a practical monopoly in many goods. It is not a normal condition of trade. It has arisen directly out of the state of war, nothing else, and, as such, it ought to bear its share of taxation, as I hope it will. I do not believe the business men of this country are going to
protest against this tax, to the extent of being desirous of seeing their protest carried into action in this House, and the Excess Profits Duty beaten.
An alternative tax takes a long time to work out, and when my right hon. Friend comes to speak of the Corporation Profits Tax he will be able to explain to the House at what a high rate that tax would have to be levied to get a yield which would bring anything into the scale to weigh against the Excess Profits Duty. There has been a great deal said, not to-day, but in some debates, about "killing the goose that lays the golden eggs." I am very tired of that, and I am glad that it has not been mentioned to-day. There are, however, more ways than one of killing a goose. Although it may be a very sad thing if a goose lays rather smaller golden eggs, or if people think we take too many of those golden eggs, there is one very bad effect to which I have not seen attention called. If the goose tries to lay too large a golden egg, she will burst, and there is nothing more dangerous for a goose.
I will leave that point—my points are generally very simple ones—and say just one thing in conclusion. I would say it both as a Minister standing here and also as a man the whole of whose life has been spent in competitive business, from which he has suceeded in emerging, and whose firm has also done its share in paying Excess Profits Duty. I do not see how any business man can look round to-day at the financial condition of this country, examine the Budget of my right hon. Friend, and see how he has spread his taxes over every class in the country, calling upon all to pay according to their capacity; seeing how this year he has increased the price of beer, which touches nearly everyone in the country, and how he has been unable, although urged to do so, to make any remission on things like tea and sugar, which hit the very poorest people in the country—I cannot see how, in the face of all that, my friends in business can come to this House and say to the Chancellor of the Exchequer, "No; keep your beer tax, your tea and sugar tax, and all those taxes on; but our excess profits—No, we are going to vote against you, and we will turn you out rather than pay it." I am quite sure that, on consideration, many a man
who may feel that he is being hit, or may think he is being unduly hit, by this tax, will think once, twice, and three times before he votes against it in this House.

Sir DONALD MACLEAN: I think the House is entitled to congratulate itself that it has had the opportunity of listening to a speech so distinguished by its honesty of purpose and frankness of expression, and that we are very much indebted to my hon. Friend. I would further say that, both in him and in my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer, the House is fortunate in having two Members who do not hesitate to say what they think. In these financial questions nothing is quite so important as that, so that we may know really where we are. With regard to the stage to which the House is now addressing itself on this very important question, I think it should be recollected that we are dealing simply with the Resolution stage, and that this is quite the right time to ventilate the subject in a general way. The real time for fighting out the objections to any tax arises, after the further preliminary stage of the Second Reading of the Finance Bill—which is another opportunity for general discussion—in the Committee stage of the Finance Bill. The time that the House has spent in discussing this tax has not been without its utility, but I would impress upon my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer that, in his approach to the Committee stage, which cannot be very long deferred, he should have careful regard to the objections which have been stated, not only in the House, but outside it, to this tax. We have had several years' experience of its working, and during a large portion of that time very genuine and legitimate grievances were not expressed by the business community, owing to the fact that we were at war. I think that is a point which should be properly borne in mind by those who are responsible for the taxation of the country. Since we have arrived at a stage at which there are, at any rate, no active military operations, due regard should be paid to the business objections to such a tax. I want to say at once that I entirely agree with the view of my right hon. Friend that there is no way of avoiding this tax this year. You have to provide the alternative, and I have not heard it yet. [AN HON. MEMBER: "The Corporation Tax! "]
That may be one alternative, and I have heard some of the arguments about it, but it does not seem to me, with the profound changes in our fiscal system which will be necessary, that we can raise the money by that proposal in this financial year; and the money must be raised.
The tax, in my view, is a bad one. I have never hesitated to express that opinion, and indeed my own personal knowledge and experience of its working are amply confirmed in that view. I hope the Government will seize the earliest opportunity of devising a proper substitute for such a tax as this. It destroys inititive, it leads to dishonesty and is fruitful of extravagance—three bad points at any time, but never quite so bad as under present conditions. I shall not feel justified in voting against the Government on this Resolution. I appeal to a large number of Members, whom I do not charge with purely interested motives in the matter at all. They are taking a public view, and the fact that a man is engaged in business does not necessarily disqualify him from taking a disinterested public view. I really think that kind of charge is made much too carelessly and most unjustly. No one suggests that a member of the Labour party is seeking a purely personal end when he discusses questions of wages and hours. The assumption, and a very sound assumption it is, is that he is acting from his point of view in the public interest. If we let go of that assumption that hon. Members taking part in our Debates are not actuated in the main by public motives this House becomes unbearable. You must assume that. I am very proud of being a Member of the House of Commons, and I am very much attached to its great traditions, and that is one of the best of them. I press upon the Chancellor of the Exchequer, believing, as I do, that this tax must remain for this year, that in the Committee stage, which we shall approach with disinterested public motives, he will give the most careful regard to recommendations which may then be made to him, after the collated experience of five years' working of this tax, and see whether he cannot give such ameliorative provisions in the new Statute as will remove, not all, but as many as possible, of the legitimate business grievances against this tax which operates not only, as I believe, harshly on the individual, but in a really detrimental
sense to the business community, and therefore to the nation as a whole.

Mr. RENWICK: I wish to impress upon the Chancellor of the Exchequer that one of the great needs of the country at present is new industries. We have been told of the enormous profits which are being made in certain industries. Those profits are being made largely owing to monopolies and to trusts, and therefore it is of the utmost importance that new industries should be encouraged and not discouraged. On the Debate on the Budget last year I told the House I knew of certain capitalists who were prepared to invest a large sum of money in new industries if there was a reduction in the Excess Profits Duty. The Excess Profits Duty was reduced to 40 per cent., and almost immediately those new industries were commenced in the hope that the duty would disappear altogether. We hardly dared hope it would disappear altogether, but we never expected it would be increased. Therefore I hope the right hon. Gentleman, in his concessions to new industries, will treat them with no niggardly hand. I wish to point out to him some of the difficulties from which we who form these new industries are suffering at present. We have competition from the Government, who are giving 5 per cent. to 5½ per cent, for their loans, we have a 7 per cent. bank rate, and we have trusts offering 8 per cent. cumulative preference shares; and, unless we who want to form these new industries can show that we are going to pay an equally high rate on preference shares, plus a fair rate upon the ordinary shares, it is impossible for us to get the necessary capital. I have recently been engaged in the formation of a very large industry, and when it was heard that the Excess Profits Duty was going to be raised to 60 per cent. there were meetings of those interested and orders were given to curtail all further expenditure upon that industry, which is a very serious matter. I hope and believe if the right hon. Gentleman will treat these new industries as liberally as he ought to treat them, resolutions of that description will be cancelled and the new industries will proceed. I hope Labour Members will recognise the importance of these industries. They seem to be in favour of these high Excess Profits Duties. If there is a factory wanting three men and there are only two at the factory gates, the men are
the masters, and therefore you want to increase the number of the factories. If you do, the enterprise of the promoters of those new industries will find more employment for the men. Therefore, I hope we shall have words of encouragement from the Labour party to those who meditate carrying on new industries. I thank the right hon. Gentleman for the concessions he has foreshadowed, and I hope they will be of a most liberal character.

Lieut.-Colonel POWNALL: The Financial Secretary to the Treasury told us he had emerged from competitive business. I could not help wondering when he said that whether, had he had a 60 per cent. or 80 per cent. Excess Profits Duty, he would have been so successful in emerging as we are very glad he was. I think very few people realise how very heavy is the incidence of the Excess Profits Duty and Income Tax on relatively small men who were in business before the War. There were some figures given in the "Times" in 1918, which showed that a man then in business had to make £25,000 a year to be as well off as he had been before the War with £5,000. The figures are not so bad now, but the man who had £l,000 before the War has to make £4,000 a year now, after allowing for 60 per cent. Excess Profits Duty, Income Tax and Super-tax, to be as well off as he was before the War. His neighbours are rather liable to say, "So-and-so must be making four times what he was in 1914. He is doing jolly well. He is profiteering." As a matter of fact, he is not a penny better off than he was in 1914, and he has not got any of the money that every man who is in business requires in order to carry stocks at twice and three times the old prices, and when he invoices goods to his customers, he has to invoice them at twice and three times the amount in consequence, which means that much more capital is required in the business.
Another point I rather think the Chancellor has missed in the proposal. War Bonds, as long as they have been held consecutively for six months, can be taken in payment of Excess Profits Duty. Any man who this autumn foresees that next spring, 1920 having been a good year, he will require to pay considerable sums in
Excess Profits Duty, can buy this autumn, in order to hold for six months, War Bonds 1928–29, which now stand at about 93. They will be taken at 100 next spring. The Chancellor of the Exchequer in that way does not get any sum at all for the liquidation of floating debt. These maturities only come on in eight or nine years; whereas if he were to keep Income Tax at the present figure, and all these sums which have to be paid away in Excess Profits Duty, were liable for assessment to Income Tax, he would receive next year qua Income Tax one-third, or thereabouts, of the sums he will not otherwise receive, because they are being surrendered in War Bonds in 1928 and 1929. He mentioned himself that many millions — I think £50,000,000 to £100,000,000—of the Excess Profits Duty are being paid off in War Bonds. As regards the scheme I have mentioned, many firms will be able to avoid paying anything in the form of Income Tax. They are paying a larger sum in War Bonds, but the Exchequer will not get the money next spring as it otherwise would. If the right hon. Gentleman thinks it absolutely necessary to keep some form of Excess Profits Duty for next year, I earnestly hope he will be able to cut it down to the 40 per cent. I also suggest consideration of the following facts. When the £200 statutory allowance was originally granted £200 was far more than it is to-day. If £200 was a fair sum in 1915, you ought to increase the statutory allowance anyhow to £300, and possibly to £400, to-day. At the time, five years ago, when the Excess Profits Duty was brought in the Bank rate was 5 per cent. It is now 7 per cent. The statutory advances on fresh capital were then from 9 to 11 per cent. I suggest that 9 to 11 per cent. five years ago was a much lower rate, relatively, than 9 to 11 per cent. now. If they were a fair sum, then the right hon. Gentleman ought to increase the allowances on extra capital to, say, 14 to 16 per cent. in view of the increased Bank rate. I hope this is the last year we shall have the Excess Profits Duty at all, but if we have to have it this year I hope he will be able to make the concessions I have indicated.

6.0 P.M.

Mr. REMER: The Chancellor of the Exchequer said in his Budget speech that if he had known how good trade was going
to be he would not have reduced the tax from 80 per cent. to 40 per cent. last year. I think it is equally true to say if he had not reduced the tax from 80 per cent. to 40 per cent. last year, trade would not have been so good as it has been during the past twelve months. The right hon. Gentleman also referred to the fact that some hon. Members have stated that high prices were the result of the increase of the Excess Profits Duty. When some of us stated that that was our view, he turned round to us and asked whether the converse was true, that prices had been reduced when the Excess Profits Duty was reduced last year. I think it is true. Prices would have gone much higher than they have during the last twelve months if he had not reduced the Excess Profits Duty from 80 to 40 per cent. He has also given us to understand that the only alternative which he is prepared to consider is the War Profits Tax, which a Committee is now considering. If he would abolish the Excess Profits Duty and give up any idea of a War Wealth Tax, and would adopt the principle of getting his money from Income Tax and Super-tax, and an extension of the Corporation Tax from 1s. to 2s., he would get more money than from the Excess Profits Duty, and he would by that means secure the confidence of the business community. I should like to refer the right hon. Gentleman to a letter which appeared in the "Liverpool Daily Post" of last Friday, signed by Mr. Sydney Dawson, an eminent Liverpool accountant, in which he gives figures of exceptional interest. He said that if a business man makes an excess profit of 10 per cent. he actually pays in taxation an amount of 21s. 8d. in the £ on the excess. If, on the other hand, he makes a bigger excess, an excess of 50 per cent., the amount that he pays in Excess Profits Duty is 14s. 8d. in the £ on the excess, showing that if a man is profiteering, and decides to charge exhorbitant prices, he is not taxed so heavily as the man who decides that he will be reasonable and will put forward reasonable prices.
I should like to refer to what the Financial Secretary has said about the business community. He said he did not think that the business community Would protest against this tax. Before coming into this House to-day, I attended a trade luncheon, and although I had no intention
of speaking, I was asked by the chairman to say what I thought about the Excess Profits Duty. I only mention that to show that the traders of this country are deeply concerned about this tax, not because they have to pay it, but because it does not fall equally upon all classes. The business people of this country are quite prepared to pay so long as the tax falls equally upon all people, including the big trusts. The people who avoid taxation are the big trusts, and it is by the Corporation Tax that the tax would fall equally upon all sections of the community. A further reason why I am strongly opposed to this form of taxation is that it is so contrary to the best interests of enterprise. It cripples all new developments. During the past week I was in consultation with a very eminent banker, and he told me that two propositions had been put to him by concerns who wanted to make extensive additions to their works for the purpose of export trade; but in both cases the managing directors of those concerns had come forward and stated that they did not now want facilities, because, owing to the Excess Profits Duty, they were not going to proceed with these particular developments. The Chancellor of the Exchequer will agree that it is a very bad thing that such enterprise is not to go on, in view of the fact that the development of our export trade will have a very considerable effect upon the exchange problem.
A further reason why I am strongly opposed to the Excess Profits Duty is that it leads to wild speculation. The trader goes into the market with the knowledge that if it comes right he will make some small profit, but if the speculation goes wrong the Government makes up the loss. That is bad from every point of view. Powerful concerns and big trusts are placed in an entrenched position. I ask hon. Members to think of one of the biggest trusts in this country, Messrs. Lever Bros. Supposing anyone was attempting to compete with Messrs. Lever Bros. in soap manufacture. They would find it very difficult in any case, but owing to the existence of the Excess Profits Duty it would be practically impossible. Messrs. Lever Bros. would be able to under-sell them at every turn, simply because they know that they have a big pre-war standard and would be able to claim back from the Government the
very large profits which they have made. The only chance for new concerns would be to build up reserves out of their profits, and take a very small sum out of their business, but that would be impossible if the Excess Profits Duty takes from those concerns the money which they -want for building up a reserve.
There is also the question of evasion. One hon. Member stated that this was a reflection on the surveyors. I do not think he would say that, if be knew some of the Surveyors of Taxes. I have a relative who is a Surveyor of Taxes, and I have discussed this question with him very often, and he tells me that evasion is one of the greatest difficulties they have. They know that evasion is going on, but the difficulty of checking evasion is one of the problems with which they have to contend all the time. There is evasion which is quite legitimate. There is an evasion of taxation by a firm which everybody has heard of, Messrs. Courtauld's, the well-known artificial soap manufacturers. They have in their assets a very large amount of property in the United States, which they have declined to bring over to this country until the Excess Profits Duty is reduced. I am told that the profits from that particular concern amounts to £5,000,000 Therefore, on that head alone, the Chancellor of the Exchequer is losing nearly £2,000,000 in taxation. There is a further way in which the Excess Profits Duty is evaded. I was told to-day of a concern with two partners. Instead of having two partners now they have only one partner. The other partner receives a salary as a salaried official. By that means the Excess Profits Duty is being evaded. The hon. Member who moved this Amendment has mentioned advertising. Every business man who has studied this question knows that the Excess Profits Duty leads to bad trading and loose methods. You have the office boy asking for a rise, because the Excess Profits Duty will have to pay for it. Everybody thinks that the Government is going to pay for extravagance.
There is another bad point which is bound to arise. I was travelling last week in the train with a friend, and he told me he was going to the south of France. He stated that he had made his pre-war standard and he added: "If the
Government think that I am going to slave my soul-case out working for them they are mistaken. I am not going to do it. I am going to the south of France to enjoy myself on the profits which I have made." That is a very bad thing for the country. The country would be very much better off if everybody would put their back into the work and see that the best was done. I am satisfied that this tax will lead to less revenue being secured, and that if the Chancellor of the Exchequer would abolish it, he would secure more revenue. It is only by having a sound, equitable system of taxation that the country can be placed on a sound, business-like footing.

Mr. LAWSON: In view of the challenges which have been thrown out to the Labour party, I wish to say that I am speaking for the party as a whole. The Mover of this Amendment made a statement towards the end of his speech which will be marked, noted and underlined by the workers of this country. He threatened the Labour party that, if they went into the Lobby against his Amendment, the section which he represented would in their turn see, and he would see to the best of his ability, that the incidence of the Excess Profits Duty would ultimately be placed upon the workers.

Mr. TERRELL: The hon. Member is entirely mistaken. I never said anything of the sort.

Mr. LAWS0N: I am very pleased to hear that I misunderstood the hon. Gentleman. That was the impression that was conveyed not only to me but to gentlemen representing the party sitting beside me. In opening out his remarks the hon. Member talked about this tax having been accepted by the business men of this country as a war sacrifice. Some of us want to know what the sacrifice is or has been. We have been told by the Inland Revenue that no less than £4,000,000,000 have gone into the pockets of certain sections of society as war wealth. Of that £4,000,000,000, 70 per cent. has gone into the pockets of one per cent of the population. It seems to me that there has not been very much sacrifice on the part of the interests who accepted this particular principle during the War. We all know that business interests as a whole have not only extended their interests, but have increased their bank balance. For the first three
months of this year the new capital subscribed was equal to the amount subscribed in the whole of 1913. The amount subscribed in 1919 was five times what it was in 1913. Therefore, it does seem as if business interests have not suffered very much from the Excess Profits Duty.
I do not believe that the people who have moved this Amendment are even helping the business interests of this country as a whole. As a business proposition, business men facing the nation's financial affairs, as they are at present, must accept some financial responsibility towards meeting the national need. But I place it higher. It may be an illusion, but I do believe there are people among the wealthy classes of this country who believe that the mass of the people have a right to a greater share of the good things of this country than they get at present. That may be an illusion, but I ask hon. Gentlemen at any rate to leave me the one illusion left to me since I came into the House of Commons. I came here as a fairly moderate trade union representative, but since I have come in contact with some of the interests that sit on those Benches I am rapidly becoming something that is not exactly a Conservative. Of course, we understand what hon. Gentlemen do not seem to understand, that there is something like a subdued insurrectionary feeling in this country among the workers.

Mr. TERRELL: No.

Mr. LAWSON: My hon. Friend says no, and I am sure that he believes no, but it is so. Amendments of this kind add considerably to the volume and the force of that feeling which is predominant in the country to-day. With the hon. Gentleman, we, of course, do not believe that this is an ideal method of raising money. The Chancellor of the Exchequer does not believe it. We believe, as the hon. Gentleman has said, that it leads to evasion. Someone has said that it leads to dishonesty, and Members of this House cheered with such feeling that one assumes they must know something about it. We do not believe that it is fair in its incidence, but it is a remarkable thing that the same section of the House that fights the Excess Profits Duty is equally stern in its opposition to any other impost upon the War wealth which it owns and is unwilling to face the national burden. [HON. MEMBERS:]
"No! "] Hon. Gentlemen say no. They talk about the Corporation Profits Tax. They know very well that it cannot be met from that source, this year at any rate. When Members of our party say that the National Debt, for instance, ought to be met by a capital levy, we are told that it is unfair. When the War Wealth Tax becomes a matter of serious consideration we are told that it is not practicable, and we are told this by the same gentleman who moved this Amendment.

Mr. TERRELL: The hon. Member entirely misrepresents me. I never said one single word against the Corporation Tax. In my opinion it is a perfectly fair system of taxation.

Mr. LAWSON: My hon. Friend knows very well that I was alluding to the Capital Levy and the War Wealth Tax. It is a well-known fact that had the Chancellor of the Exchequer received any encouragement from certain sections of this House he would have preferred a War wealth tax to an increase of the Excess Profits Duty; but it is well known that hon. Gentlemen do not accept that as a method of taxation. When it comes to Excess Profits Duty they say that it is unfair altogether. I think that we are right in assuming that all the art that has been used this afternoon cannot cover the fact that the section behind this Amendment are prepared to shove the financial burden of the nation on to the big shoulders of the masses of the people, if they get an opportunity. They are prepared to face anything rather than face the financial situation of the present time.
This Amendment raises a larger question than the mere incidence of taxation upon a certain section. It raises the question of the ultimate incidence of the War from a financial point of view. Whether this House likes it or not, this matter has resolved itself into a discussion as to whether the people have the ability financially to pay for the War, and to meet the needs for national development, or whether the masses of the people ultimately are going to be compelled to pay in money as they have paid largely in blood and tears. [HON. MEMBERS: "NO!"] Hon. Gentlemen say "No," but with the best intent I have been driven to that conclusion.
You cannot persuade this country that we are not able to meet this tax. I have given some of the general financial results. We see them on every hand. What about the manifest luxury and extravagance that are flaunting themselves in every part of the country as a result of War profits? Of course, it may be said that that is a general assertion, but this House should be reminded that these things are taking place, and that the masses of the people know that they are taking place. I remember not long ago there was before a Court a young Gentleman, who informed a Judge and jury that he was spending £10,000 a year in collecting butterflies. I remember seeing a case not long ago in which an amiable lady had spent on china something like £30,000, and counsel informed the Judge that those who had wealth at least had the right to expensive tastes. When we consider things of that type the masses of the people are right in assuming, at any rate, that the classes which can do those things, multiplied by a thousand instances, have at least the ability to meet this increase of tax.
It seems to me that this Amendment shows a singular disregard of War-time professions. We all know the kind of thing that was promised to the masses of this country. I have heard in this House sometimes discussions about War medals for the services rendered. I want to inform the House that, according to the prevalent feeling of the country, War medals are rapidly having the same value in the minds of the soldiers as War-time professions, and for a very simple reason. Men have come back to this country, and you cannot get the necessary wealth, as the result of the stiff-backed attitude of Members of the House on that side, for the purpose of creating employment and meeting the general situation. I know that these things are not pleasant to hear, but I am telling the House the kind of thing which men in the street and in the workshop are saying at the present time. It may appear all right from the point of view of the gentlemen who pay Excess Profits Duty. Not long ago I stood in a house of one room. In that room there were a mother and four children living. I do not know how they lived there. It seems to me that half of them must have made arrangements to be out during the day while the
other half were in, in order to live there I was born in that house and I know something of what the average member of the working class thinks at the present time because of bitter experience. But the thing that came back to me with all its force was this: that there are still people living in that house. There are millions of people living in such houses. There are millions of people finding it very difficult even to meet the most ordinary needs of the day.
I appeal to the best instincts of hon. Members. I have the illusion that there is a better instinct even in the men who are backing Amendments of this kind. I appeal to their better instincts. They sometimes tell us that our people, the working classes, are showing signs of extravagance because there is a little ripple upon the surface here and there. If they knew something of the sacrifice of the average working class family at present they would not pay much attention to the small negligible things that they sometimes see. I appeal to the Chancellor of the Exchequer to stand firm on this question. We agree that there is room for consideration for the small man, and the new businesses, but we want the Chancellor of the Exchequer to be very careful of the ground when he makes that concession. Generally speaking, we hope that he will keep a stiff back while within certain limits we agree. I do not know whether it is a matter of courage or because he has been driven by the irresistible facts of the situation, but we hope that he will hold firm, and he will have the strange sight of the Labour party following the Government into the Lobby against this Amendment.

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I rise only to make an appeal to hon. Members. The Amendment is an Amendment for the total repeal of the Excess Profits Duty. My hon. Friend, the Member for the City of London, has a further Amendment proposing to continue the duty at 40 per cent. instead of raising it to 60 per cent. May I beg the House to take the decision now on the question of the total repeal of the duty, so that we may have a little time before 8.15 to deal with the further Amendment and dispose of any other questions?

Question, "That paragraph (a) stand part of the said Resolution," put, and agreed to.

Sir F. BANBURY: I beg to move, in paragraph (b) to leave out the words "sixty per centum, instead of" ["equal to sixty per centum'].
The purpose of this Amendment is to reduce the Excess Profits Duty from the proposed amount of 60 per cent. to 40 per cent. If it is carried, the result will be that during the financial year ending March, 1921, the Government would lose a revenue of £10,000,000. With a surplus of £234,000,000 the loss of £10,000,000 is of very little importance. We are going, I believe, to use that £234,000,000 to pay off debt. I suggest that before we consider whether or not that sum of £234,000,000, or, as it would be with my Amendment carried, £224,000,000, is not sufficient, we should wait a year to see whether or not during that time some sort of tax might be devised which would take the place of the Excess Profits Duty. I do not think there can be any doubt that a tax which imposes a penalty on industry is a very bad tax at the present time. I will not go into the inequalities of the tax. While during the War it might have been necessary—I think to a great extent it was necessary—to have a tax of this sort, the House will remember that when it was originally proposed it was to be a tax on excess profits obtained by people owing to the War. Now that the War is over, anything which prevents people accumulating capital—I would commend this to the Labour party —as this duty does, is detrimental not only to the interests of the manufacturers and business people generally, but detrimental to the working classes themselves, because it takes away from them the opportunity of employment. It will be asked, What will take the place of this tax if the Amendment is carried? I say that during the year which will elapse there will be plenty of opportunity for the Government to consider whether or not they can devise some other tax which will not operate so unfairly.
There is another alternative, and it is this. I hold in my hand a return which was given by the Financial Secretary to the Treasury on the 7th of August of last year. I find from it that in 1910–1911 the expenditure on the Civil Service in Ireland and on the Civil Service in England amounted in all to £70,000,000. I turn to the financial paper which was given to us when the Budget was introduced, and I find on page 5 that
these similar services are put down at £497,000,000. That is an enormous increase. I see also that last year these services were put down at £505,000,000, so that, on the face of it, it would appear that there has been a reduction of £8,000,000 for those services during the last year. It is not a very large reduction upon such an enormous item. If hon. Members will take the trouble to analyse the details, they will find that instead of there being a decrease there has been a very large increase, and I will explain it. In 1919–1920, included in the Civil Services was a sum of £115,500,000 advanced as loans to the Dominions and Allies, but in this year the sum advanced in that way was only £36,000,000. I do not know how advances to Dominions and Allies get into the Civil Service Estimates; I should have thought they had nothing, whatever to do with the Civil Service If you deduct £36,000,000 from £115,500,00 you have £79,000,000 left, and therefore, what you have to do is to add that £79,000,000 to the £497,000,000. There is therefore actually an increase this year in the Civil Service of £60,000,000. That seems to me to afford a; very great opportunity for economy. It may ' be said that owing to the rise in prices it is necessary to give larger salaries to Civil servants. If you go so far as to say that salaries should be doubled, you would only get the figure of £140,000,000. If you subtract that £140,000,000 from £500,000,000 you will find that you have something like £360,000,000 on which to effect economy.
I would suggest that the better way to-deal with this large expenditure is not to give any more money to the Government. What you ought to do is to insist upon increased saving. The more money you give to the Government the more they will spend. You must impress upon the Government that it is not possible to obtain more money if it is desired to maintain the commercial supremacy of the country. I have great faith in my country, and I believe that if the Government will only set the example, and will take the matter boldly in hand, pointing out to all classes that what we have to do is to-work hard and save money, we shall in time return to the prosperity which we enjoyed before the War. If they will do that they will do something to relieve the enormous burdens which are weighing upon every class, and which the working
class will feel later on. I am sorry to say I believe that will become true.

Mr. MILLS: It is already true.

Sir F. BANBURY: Unless they will do that I feel quite certain we shall continue to descend the slippery plane which we entered upon, I think foolishly, when last year, instead of making economies, we attempted to make a new world, instead of endeavouring to restore the old world to the position in which it was before the War. I would appeal to the House to support me in this Amendment. If there is a good minority for my Amendment, I think it would have a great effect, and I do not think it would do the Finance Bill any harm. I believe the only solution of the position in which we are is increased economy and increased production. I beg to move.

Mr. GRIFFITHS: I hope the Chancellor of the Exchequer will not accept this Amendment. The right hon. Baronet has tried to deliver a lecture to the Labour Members, but that right hon. Member does not look at this question from the same economic point of view as the Members of the Labour party. He talked about saving. I do not know whether he meant saving Treasury Notes or saving useful commodities produced by the workers of the country by hands and by brains. What the Labour party believe in is that the national pool should be filled with useful commodities and that those commodities should be scientifically distributed amongst the people of the country. It is useless filling the national pool with Treasury Notes. Last year when I spoke upon the question of excess profits I pointed out to the Chancellor that, in so far as the most important trades in the country were concerned, no capital was required in order to revive trade. I believe the Chancellor on that occasion pointed out that he was reducing the Excess Profits Duty with a view to reviving the industry of the country in order that we might get back to pre-war conditions. I think, if we take the four most important industries of this country, namely, steel, galvanising, cotton, and the ports and harbours of our country I do not believe that the Chancellor can show that a single penny of new capital has been invested in those industries during the last year. If hon. Members
do not agree with the facts I have placed before them let them repudiate them. I am sure that the Financial Secretary knows that what I am saying is correct. Take the galvanising industry, and you will find there are more than 25 per cent. of the modern mills idle to-day. I will explain why later. In the steel industry there are several furnaces and section mills and bar mills and other kinds of mills idle to-day on account of the transition from producing shells to the production of steel used for purposes as in prewar days. If you go to Lancashire you have hundreds of mills idle in the cotton trade. [HON. MEMBERS: "No, no !"]

Mr. SUGDEN: Where?

Mr. GRIFFITHS: In Lancashire to-day, owing to shortage of labour.

Lieut.-Commander ASTBURY: Will the hon. Member name one? I may say I am a Lancashire Member.

Mr. GRIFFITHS: In Preston.

Lieut.-Commander ASTBURY: Would the hon. Member tell me what mills are closed in Preston through lack of labour?

Mr. GRIFFITHS: I am giving you the information contained in the report we received from the members of the cotton industry—that there are mills idle in Lancashire to-day.

Mr. BARTLEY DENNISS: Spindles, not mills.

Mr. GRIFFITHS: Very well, spindles, but spindles make a mill. Let me come back to the galvanising trade. We pointed out last year that the working men in these trades go to their libraries and get hold of the journals and find out exactly the returns and profits made in those trades by the employers, and that causes more unrest than anything that I know of, so far as the trade unionists of the country are concerned. What do we find? Last year as a result of the reduction of the Excess Profits Duty from 80 to 40 per cent. you presented the employers with at least £250,000,000, I think that is an under-estimate, but I want to be on the right side. That means, that with a few millions pounds more, the Chancellor of the Exchequer would have had no deficit to meet this year. Furthermore, the employers in these industries have been making bigger profits
during the last year, although he reduced the Excess Profits Tax than during the period of the War. In 1914 steel, tin-plate, bars, and other sections were sold at £5 per hon. During the period of the War, when these industries were controlled, the Government fixed the price-at £15 per hon. The employers made huge profits out of that £15 per hon. Immediately steel was decontrolled, although the sliding scale in the steel industries only stood at something like 105 per cent. above pre-War rates, to-day it stands at 200 per cent. above pre-War rates.

Major-General Sir NEWTON MOORE: What did coal cost?

7.0 P.M.

Mr. GRIFFITHS: As soon as decontrol took place the employers took advantage of supply and demand, and have been fixing prices at such a rate that they are having a serious effect on other industries as well. I have a case here which was in Court, and the evidence given by a Mr. Taylor, a chartered accountant, on behalf of the Inland Revenue Department. He produced a synopsis of the balance sheet of a particular works. I do not want to name the works, because there was a charge of falsifying the accounts, and the manager was acquitted. Mr. Taylor's synopsis showed that the basis figure of the pre-war profits for the purpose of control was £30,000, and in 1916 the proprietor was entitled to £48,200. In four months the profits were £67,000, but the proprietor had no interest beyond the £48,000. The profits for the works that, year amounted to £203,991, subject to the Munitions Levy, so you see that in pre-war times this firm had an income of £30,000, and during the period of the War, with steel at £15 per ton, it made a profit of £203,991. What is the position to-day? Steel is not at £15, but at £24 a. hon. [HON. MEMBERS: "What is the cost of labour and coal?"] It is for you to reply later on, and to upset these facts if you can. If these employers made this enormous profit, when the trade was controlled, in steel sold at £15 a ton, what are they making to-day, selling steel at £24 a ton? The fact of the matter is that the employers have abused their privileges by increasing prices and taking advantage of the demand being greater than the supply, and that does not only affect the steel industry, but all the industries in the
country, and it goes right round, so that you have not only a circle of employers getting the greatest advantage they possibly can, but you cannot blame the workmen for going after a share of these enormous profits that the employers are making. We believe our way of imposing a capital levy would be the best method of raising revenue, but while we do not think the Government's is an ideal method, we accept it because the Chancellor is compelled to get this money, and we hope that before 12 months are over prices will come down. The wave of high prices to-day is not receding, but rapidly advancing, and we want to see them coming down to normal conditions, the same as in pre-War days, and seeing that the Chancellor of the Exchequer has no other source from which to draw and will not accept our proposal for a capital levy, we are supporting the increase of the Excess Profits Duty from 40 per cent. to 60 per cent. I myself wish he had increased it to 100 per cent. to prevent the employers profiteering any more.

Mr. R. CARTER: I wish to support the Amendment. Coming from one of the particular areas that has just been spoken of when the matter of spindles came up, I wish to say that, in our county and round about there, there was a pious hope, and more than a pious hope, that this particular duty would be dropped altogether this year. It was really believed in, so that when the additional 20 per cent. was put on it came as a very unpleasant shock. I too have had sheaves of letters, and I want the Financial Secretary to the Treasury to understand that the art of propaganda has not been really worked with regard to the correspondence that I have had on this subject, for the letters that have reached me have been written from firms really and truly who will suffer from this tax. I am speaking of the younger firms. We will take the case of a man who started business in 1912 and who very likely for the first year was absolutely at a loss, building up his business. The second year he may only just have paid expenses, and the third year he was making a small profit. He has left his old firm, and is working on his own because he thinks he can do better by so doing. Across the road there is his old firm, who were making their tens of thousands the year before the War and he
on his very little return has to pay immensely more in proportion than does the wealthier firm in Excess Profits Duty. I was very glad to hear that the policy of mercy is going to be shown, and I hope in a large degree, to these young firms and these young people who are struggling to do what we are all told to do, namely, to try to increase production, as being the only salvation for the country. I consider the putting on of this 20 per cent. will not increase production, but will have the opposite effect. If the taking off last year of 40 per cent. of the duty increased production, will the putting on of 20 per cent. this year increase or decrease production? To my mind there is no doubt that, as long as this tax has to be paid in practically liquid assets, the putting on of another 20 per cent. will seriously cripple even the largest firms.
Prices have gone up in every way, and even profits, as we know, are not what profits were, and I would very much like to accentuate this fact, that I think it is undesirable even to continue this tax. After decreasing it from 80 per cent. to 40 per cent. last year, to increase it now to 60 per cent., after we are told that the financial condition of the country is more satisfactory than it was last year, is bound to cause irritation and unrest in all business circles. What I would like to do would be rather to encourage the development of trade than to hamper it, and I appeal to the Chancellor of the Exchequer to take the matter very seriously into consideration, especially, as I say, with regard to the younger firms. The very wealthy firms may stand it without much trouble, but for the young ones it means in many cases either bankruptcy or penury, or driving out some of the rising young business men of our country and making their hearts sad when they ought to be bucking themselves up and doing their best to pull things through. There are many cases of men who have put in one or two years in the War and have come back and started in business on their own, and is it fair, after they have done their bit for their country, that they should have this very heavy burden put on their shoulders? I may be asked to suggest an alternative in order to make up the loss which would be caused by not increasing the duty, but I do not think the difference is so very great to be made up by the Treasury. I do wish the
Chancellor could take away the burdens from the persons who are producing. We are told that production alone will save us from bankruptcy, and yet on the other hand we are told, "If you do produce, we will take so much off you." Where is the incentive for striving to do better? I think it is a mistake, and I hope it will not be persisted in. I know very well the money must come from somewhere, and I am not asking for the abolition of the tax, but for no increase. If the tax is kept at 40 per cent., it is a heavy enough burden for any young firm to start with, and a heavy burden on the best established firms. I hope the Chancellor will go fully into the question whether this extra 20 per cent. which he is going to get is worth the candle. I do not think it is, and I think that by imposing it you will be keeping down extension, expansion, and production.

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: The course of the Debate this afternoon has, I think, been instructive and interesting. We were deprived, by some reason which I do not entirely explain to myself, of the prospect of a Division a few moments ago, and I think the House wants to come to a decision pretty quickly now, but I do not think I ought to refrain from making some observations. I must say, whilst acknowledging the moderation and friendliness, if I may say so, of the speech of my right hon. Friend (Sir F. Banbury) who moved this Amendment, that it is one which it is quite impossible for the Government to accept. As already stated by my hon. Friend the Financial Secretary, I am prepared to consider, and indeed I am not only prepared to consider, but I have for some time past been considering, what alleviation I can make in the burden which falls on such small or new businesses as the hon. Member who has just sat down has spoken of; and I will call the attention of the House to this, that as a result of this afternoon's Debate it is on those small businesses that the objections have been concentrated, that there have been several admissions from hon. Members who have spoken against my proposals that they are not concerned for the big businesses, which can afford to pay the tax, but that they are thinking of these little businesses or of men who are just now trying to establish themselves in business after serving their country in the
War. Let me say in regard to what has been stated about the great amount of correspondence received by hon. Members on the subject, that speaking from my own experience I have been quite as much struck by the letters I have received from men who said, "You will hit me very hard, but you are right, and I beg you to stick to your guns," as I have been by telegrams sent to order, bearing an extraordinary similarity of expression, indicating to me, as to anyone who has been a short time in this House, a common origin for all. I say it is impossible to accept this Amendment to reduce the tax for this year to 40 per cent. If last year, instead of proposing to reduce it to 40 per cent., I had proposed to reduce it only to 60 per cent., I should have got as much gratitude from the payers of Excess Profits Duty as I got for the reduction to 40 per cent., and had I foreseen the conditions that would prevail in the last 12 months that is the proposal which I should have made on the part of His Majesty's Government.
An hon. Gentleman has spoken as if in what I said the other day I had treated the good trade of this country as a reason for now returning to the 60 per cent. rate. That was not so. It was the abnormal and exceptional conditions of trade, producing wholly abnormal, exceptional and extravagant rates of profit. That is a quite different thing. It is not a necessary correlative or concomitant of good trade, but it is an inevitable concomitant of the scarcity that now prevails in the world, and of the immense excess of demand over supply. I say, therefore, that if I could have foreseen I would not have reduced the duty below 60 per cent. last year. I did not foresee the circumstances. You may blame me; you may say I was blind. But who was clearersighted at the moment when I and the Government had to take the decision? Now I find that the circumstances are wholly different from what were then con templated, that the abnormality of the conditions not merely remains, but has increased in the twelve months which have passed. Prices, instead of falling, have risen further. I am always told that prices will rise if I put on a tax, but nobody has ever pointed out that prices fell when I reduced it. Then my hon. Friend goes into the region of prophecy
and says that if I had not reduced it, prices would have been still higher. My own impression is that they were about as high as they could go. I find prices rise, and I find that, with the rise in prices, profits are higher than before, though we all supposed they would become less. Under those circumstances, if we could have foreseen this last year, we would not have reduced the tax so much, and we are entitled to put the duty back— not to the 80 per cent., which I think under any circumstances, except those of extreme necessity is too high—but to the 60 per cent.
I have asked for alternatives, but they are not so easy to find, and when you do find them they are not so free from objection that they are universally acceptable. I have had suggestions put to me. Curiously enough, they have generally been suggestions which I have already examined with my advisers, and some of which I have put to those representatives of commerce and industry who have waited upon me with their objections to the Excess Profits Duty. I have heard a good deal to-day in the discussion about the inequality of a flat rate of Excess Profits Duty. I have suggested as an alternatitve to the representatives of commerce and industry that this tax should be graduated like the Super-tax. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear!"] Does the House like that? [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear!"] Well, representatives of commerce and industry did not. They declined the suggestion. I invited them to find me an alternative. In conversation across the Table the suggestion was immediately thrown out that somebody else should be taxed. I said that that was not the alternative for which I sought. I asked them to raise a similar sum of money from approximately the same people with greater fairness and without the inconvenience of which they complained. They went away to consider, and approached me again in January. I said I should be very glad to see the alternative, and they really had no alternative.

Mr. BILLING: May I ask who were these people?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: The Federation of British Industries.

Mr. TERRELL: They are not the only people.

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: My hon. Friend has never suggested any alternative. Bather later this year, before the Budget was introduced, the Federation made a proposal. Did it comply with my conditions? Was it a proposal for a graduated tax on profits, which commends itself to some Members of the House, at any rate? No, Sir, it was for a flat rate of tax on profits, regardless of the rate at which they were earned, and not on the profits of industry assessed to the Excess Profits Duty only, but on all earnings from trade, agriculture and the professions. That was not an alternative. That was shifting the burden on to other shoulders. I should add that they were specifically and vehemently opposed to anything in the nature of a graduated tax which involved a valuation of the capital in the business. It is not an easy matter; I do not like it for Revenue purposes, and they did not like it as taxpayers, and they were not prepared to encourage it. I must not at this stage go into the difficulties of a graduated profits tax. The treatment of goodwill, as I heard an hon. Gentleman mention a moment ago, is one of those things. There is the treatment of oldestablished businesses whose shares have for many years changed hands on the basis of their having long continued to pay very high dividends, so that they are purchased to return, say, 10 per cent. I only mention these matters to show that I am not so wedded to the Excess Profits Duty that I would not gladly accept a better alternative if you could find it. I have sought an alternative myself. I have enlisted the help of some of those most interested and desired them really to bring their minds to bear on this problem with a view to fulfilling conditions that are essential conditions. My right hon. Friend says that this year it brings in only £10,000,000, but, after all, if you do not get that this year you will leave the matter open till next year and then have to do something else. I cannot do that. I will do everything I can to promote economy and to cut down unnecessary expenditure. I recognise that at this moment—I was going to say the first duty—but, at any rate, I agree it is one of the primary duties. I beg the House to help me. Their neglect does not excuse us, but, if they do not help, they make our task much more difficult. I recognise the primary importance of economy.

Sir F. BANBURY: I think I have helped.

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: My right hon. Friend and I are such old friends that we must not bandy compliments. I recognise that the more economies we can make the greater will be the sum of money available for the reduction of the Debt. In levying this tax for twelve months at 60 per cent. I am looking, as I said in my Budget Statement, not so much to the £10,000,000 I get this year as to the full year's product of the tax, which is £100,000,000. That is a sum which, even in these days, counts, and with which I cannot afford to dispense. My first duty is to make a real effort, and to persuade the House and the country, if I can, to make a real effort now, while prices are still high, while taxes still give a large return, while trade is still prosperous, to reduce that vast load of debt which we have to carry as a result of the War, and thereby to reduce as fast as we can, and within the limits which our obligations impose upon us, the Floating Debt, which is an embarrassment to commerce, which endangers from day to day, as it were— I do not want to use alarming words, but it is a little difficult to find exactly suitable terms when speaking in this way —which I do not say is dangerous from day to day, but might easily, in circumstances which we could foresee, endanger the credit of the country, and with it the credit of every business in the country and every man in the country. After all, individual credit is bounded by the limits of national credit, and if we do not get our national credit on a secure foundation, and do not show we are in earnest about it, and about doing it at once, individual credit will suffer to the loss of national prestige.
I say but one word more before I leave this subject. Details, I hope, the House will consent to leave to the discussion of the actual terms of the Finance Bill in Committee, when I shall hope to make proposals to carry out the pledges I have given to-day and to meet the wishes of the House at large. But do consider, in connection with the question of credit, that we are talking not only for our own people, that we are acting not only for our own people, but we are talking here and we are acting before all the world. There is nothing more important to us at this moment, with our dependence
upon overseas supplies of food and raw material, than that our international credit should stand high. There is no other place where it is more important that our credit should hold good than in America. I am quite content to be judged for my part of the responsibility in this Budget, and of the proposals which have been made, by the verdict of informed American opinion upon the effort and the determination which the Budget shows of this country and this people to set its house in order, to stand once again, as we have stood for so long, in the very front rank as a great financial, commercial and industrial nation.

Mr. TERRELL: [HON. MEMBEES: "Divide!"] I will not take up the time of the House, except to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer one question, and that is in connection with the standard of profit, the datum line. It has been pointed out in the course of the Debate to-day that a great many firms are in a very unfavourable position. Will the right hon. Gentleman, when he comes to the Finance Bill, give these firms substantial relief—these firms which, through no fault of their own, stand in this unfavourable position? Will he give them relief so that their standard may be raised to a level with other firms of equal position and of equal earning power? This is one of the great grievances which is rankling in the people's minds. [HON.

MEMBERS: "Divide, divide!"] I do not want to keep the House unduly, but I would ask, will the right hon. Gentleman give consideration to the question of raising the standard of firms who are in a bad positon to pre-War standards, because not only does this apply to firms, but also to partners, and so on, who are affected by the tax at present.

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: Very briefly let me say I do not think my hon. Friend must press me to go beyond the statement made on my behalf by the Financial Secretary and repeated in my own speech. My hon. Friend the Financial Secretary recited to the House the various expedients by which, at the inception of the tax, and still more later in the course of the tax, efforts were made to alleviate hard cases. I am reviewing every one of those cases to see what I can do, with a view to bringing further alleviation under the circumstances of to-day. I am not prepared to pledge myself to any particular course more than I have said. I want to consult, amongst others, the Board of Directors of the Manchester Chamber of Commerce, who have sent me the best Resolution I have had on the subject.

Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the said Resolution."

The House divided: Ayes, 287; Noes, 75.

Division No.95.]
AYES.
[7.35 p.m.


Acland, Rt. Hon. F. D.
Breese, Major Charles E.
Cowan, D. M. (Scottish Universities)


Adair, Rear-Admiral Thomas B. S.
Bridgeman, William Clive
Craig, Colonel Sir J. (Down, Mid)


Agg-Gardner, Sir James Tynte
Briggs, Harold
Craik, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry


Amery, Lieut.-Col. Leopold C. M. S.
Britton, G. B.
Davidson, Major-General Sir J. H.


Archdale, Edward Mervyn
Brown, Captain D. C.
Davies, A. (Lancaster, Clitheroe)


Armitage, Robert
Bruton, Sir James
Davies, Major D. (Montgomery)


Astbury, Lieut.-Commander F. W.
Buchanan, Lieut.-Colonel A. L. H.
Davies, Thomas (Cirencester)


Astor, Viscountess
Buckley, Lieut.-Colonel A.
Davies, Sir William H. (Bristol, S.)


Baird, John Lawrence
Bull, Rt. Hon. Sir William James
Davies, M. Vaughan- (Cardigan)


Baldwin, Stanley
Burdon, Colonel Rowland
Davison, J. E. (Smethwick)


Balfour, Sir R. (Glasgow, Partick)
Burn, Col. C. R. (Devon, Torquay)
Dawes, James Arthur


Barlow, Sir Montague
Butcher, Sir John George
Denniss, Edmund R. B. (Oldham)


Barnes, Major H. (Newcastle, E.)
Campion. Lieut.-Colonel W. R.
Du Pre, Colonel William Baring


Barnett, Major R. W
Cape, Thomas
Edge, Captain William


Barnston, Major Harry
Carr, W. Theodore
Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)


Barrie, Charles Coupar
Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward H.
Edwards, Major J. (Aberavon)


Barrie, Hugh Thorn (Lon'derry, N.)
Carter, W. (Nottingham, Mansfield)
Edwards, John H. (Glam., Neath)


Barton, R. C. (Wicklow. W.)
Cautley, Henry S.
Elliot, Capt. Walter E. (Lanark)


Beauchamp, Sir Edward
Cayzer, Major Herbert Robin
Eyres-Monsell, Commander B. M.


Beckett, Hon. Gervase
Cecil, Rt. Hon. Evelyn (Birm., Aston)
Farquharson, Major A. C.


Bell, James (Lancaster, Ormskirk)
Cecil, Rt. Hon. Lord H. (Ox. Univ.)
Fell, Sir Arthur


Benn, Sir A. S. (Plymouth, Drake)
Cecil, Rt. Hon. Lord R. (Hitchin)
Fisher, Rt. Hon. Herbert A. L.


Bethell, Sir John Henry
Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. J. A. (Birm., W.)
FitzRoy, Captain Hon. E. A.


Bigland, Alfred
Chamberlain, N. (Birm., Ladywood)
Flannery, Sir James Fortescue


Birchall, Major J. Dearman
Cheyne, Sir William Watson
Forestier-Walker, L.


Bird, Sir A. (Wolverhampton, West)
Clay, Lieut.-Colonel H. H. Spender
Forrest, Walter


Borwick, Major G. O.
Clynes, Rt. Hon. J. R.
France, Gerald Ashburner


Boscawen, Rt. Hon. Sir A. Griffith-
Cockerill, Brigadier-General G. K.
Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.


Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.
Cohen, Major J. Brunel
Galbraith, Samuel


Boyd-Carpenter, Major A.
Coote, Colin Reith (Isle of Ely)
Gardiner, James


Brace, Rt. Hon. William
Courthope, Major George L.
Gibbs, Colonel George Abraham


Gilbert, James Daniel
M'Curdy, Charles Albert
Seager, Sir William


Gilmour, Lieut.-Colonel John
M'Donald, Dr. Bouverie F. P.
Seely, Major-General Rt. Hon. John


Glanville, Harold James
Mackinder, Sir H. J. (Camlachie)
Sexton, James


Glyn, Major Ralph
M'Lean, Lieut.-Col. Charles W. W.
Shaw, Hon. Alex. (Kilmarnock)


Goff, Sir R. Park
Macleod, J. Mackintosh
Shaw, William T. (Forfar)


Graham, W. (Edinburgh, Central)
M'Micking, Major Gilbert
Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)


Grayson, Lieut.-Colonel H. M.
Macnamara, Rt. Hon. Dr. T. J.
Shortt, Rt. Hon E. (N'castle-on-T.)


Green, Albert (Derby)
McNeill, Ronald (Kent, Canterbury)
Simm, M. T.


Green, Joseph F. (Leicester, W.)
Macpherson, Rt. Hon. James I.
Smith, Harold (Warrington)


Gregory, Holman
Macquisten, F. A.
Smith, W. R. (Wellingborough)


Greig, Colonel James William
Maddocks, Henry
Smithers, Sir Alfred W.


Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)
Magnus, Sir Philip
Spoor, B. G.


Grundy, T. W.
Mallalieu, F. W.
Stanier, Captain Sir Beville


Guest, Major O. (Leic, Loughboro')
Malone, Major P. B. (Tottenham, S.)
Stanley, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. G. F.


Hallas, Eldred
Marks, Sir George Croydon
Stanton, Charles B.


Hamilton, Major C. G. C.
Matthews, David
Starkey, Captain John R.


Hanson, Sir Charles Augustin
Mills, John Edmund
Steel, Major S. Strang


Harmsworth, C. B. (Bed., Luton)
Moles, Thomas
Stephenson, Colonel H. K.


Harris, Sir Henry Percy
Molson, Major John Elsdale
Stewart, Gershom


Hartshorn, Vernon
Mond, Rt. Hon. Sir Alfred M.
Strauss, Edward Anthony


Hayday, Arthur
Montagu, Rt. Hon. E. S.
Sturrock, J. Leng


Henderson, Major V. L. (Tradeston)
Moreing, Captain Algernon H.
Surtees, Brigadier-General H. C.


Hennessy, Major J. R. G.
Morgan, Major D. Watts
Sutherland, Sir William


Henry, Denis S. (Londonderry, S.)
Morrison, Hugh
Swan, J. E.


Hewart, Rt. Hon. Sir Gordon
Morrison-Bell, Major A. C.
Taylor, J.


Hilder, Lieut.-Colonel Frank
Munro, Rt. Hon. Robert
Thomas, Rt. Hon. James H. (Derby)


Hirst, G. H.
Murray, Lt.-Col. Hon. A. (Aberdeen)
Thomas-Stanford, Charles


Hoare, Lieut.-Colonel Sir S. J. G.
Murray, John (Leeds, West)
Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South)


Holbrook, Sir Arthur Richard
Murray, Major William (Dumfries)
Thomson, T. (Middlesbrough, West)


Hope, James F. (Sheffield, Central)
Myers, Thomas
Thomson, Sir W. Mitchell- (Maryhill)


Hope, Lt.-Col. Sir J. A. (Midlothian)
Nail, Major Joseph
Thorpe, Captain John Henry


Hope, J. D. (Berwick & Haddington)
Neal, Arthur
Townley, Maximilian G.


Hopkinson, A. (Lancaster, Mossley)
Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)
Tryon, Major George Clement


Horne, Sir R. S. (Glasgow, Hillhead)
Nicholson, Reginald (Doncaster)
Vickers, Douglas


Hotchkin, Captain Stafford Vere
O'Grady, Captain James
Walsh, Stephen (Lancaster, Ince)


Howard, Major S. G.
Oman, Charles William C.
Walters, Sir John Tudor


Hunter, General Sir A. (Lancaster)
Ormsby-Gore, Captain Hon. W.
Walton, J. (York, W. R., Don Valley)


Hunter-Weston, Lieut.-Gen. Sir A. G.
Palmer, Major Godfrey Mark
Warner, Sir T. Courtenay T.


Hurst, Lieut.-Colonel Gerald B.
Palmer, Brigadier-General G. L.
Waterson, A. E.


Irving, Dan
Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)
Weston, Colonel John W.


James, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. Cuthbert
Parry, Lieut.-Colonel Thomas Henry
Whitla, Sir William


Jameson, J. Gordon
Pease, Rt. Hon. Herbert Pike
Wignall, James


Jesson, C.
Peel, Lieut.-Col. R. F. (Woodbridge)
Wild, Sir Ernest Edward


Jodreil, Neville Paul
Peel, Col. Hn. S. (Uxbridge, Mddx.)
Wilkie, Alexander


Johnson, L. S.
Philipps, Sir Owen C. (Chester, City)
Williams, Aneurin (Durham, Consett)


Jones, Sir Edgar R. (Merthyr Tydvil)
Pollock, Sir Ernest M.
Williams, Lt.-Com. C. (Tavistock)


Jones, Sir Evan (Pembroke)
Prescott, Major W. H.
Williams, Col. P. (Middlesbrough, E.)


Jones, G. W. H. (Stoke Newington)
Pretyman, Rt. Hon. Ernest G.
Williams, Col. Sir R. (Dorset, W.)


Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)
Purchase, H. G.
Williamson, Rt. Hon. Sir Archibald


Jones, J. J. (West Ham, Silvertown)
Rae, H. Norman
Wilson, Colonel Leslie O. (Reading)


Jones, J. T. (Carmarthen, Llanelly)
Raeburn, Sir William H.
Wilson, Lt.-Col. Sir M. (Bethnal Gn.)


Kenyon, Barnet
Ratcliffe, Henry Butler
Wilson, Lieut.-Col. M. J. (Richmond)


Kidd, James
Reid, D. D.
Wilson, W. Tyson (Westhoughton)


Lambert, Rt. Hon. George
Rendall, Athelstan
Wood, Hon. Edward F. L. (Ripon)


Lane-Fox, G. R.
Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)
Wood, Major S. Hill- (High Peak)


Law, Rt. Hon. A. B. (Glasgow, C.)
Roberts, Frederick O. (W. Bromwich)
Woolcock, William James U.


Lawson, John J.
Roberts, Sir S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)
Worthington-Evans, Rt. Hon. Sir L.


Lewis, Rt. Hon. J. H. (Univ., Wales)
Robinson, S. (Brecon and Radnor)
Yate, Colonel Charles Edward


Lewis, T. A. (Glam., Pontypridd)
Robinson, Sir T. (Lanes., Stretford)
Yeo, Sir Alfred William


Lister, Sir R. Ashton
Rodger, A. K.
Young, Lieut.-Com. E. H. (Norwich)


Locker-Lampson, Com. O. (H'tingd'n)
Roundell, Colonel R. F.
Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)


Long, Rt. Hon. Walter
Royds, Lieut.-Colonel Edmund
Young, W. (Perth & Kinross, Perth)


Lorden, John William
Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)



Loseby, Captain C. E.
Sanders, Colonel Sir Robert A.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Lunn, William
Scott, A. M. (Glasgow, Bridgeton)
Lord E. Talbot and Mr. James Parker.


Lynn, R. J.
Scott, Leslie (Liverpool Exchange)



NOES


Allen, Lieut.-Colonel William James
Cory, Sir J. H. (Cardiff, South)
Hailwood, Augustine


Archer-Shee, Lieut.-Colonel Martin
Davies, Alfred Thomas (Lincoln)
Harmsworth, Hon. E. C. (Kent)


Atkey, A. R.
Davies, Sir David Sanders (Denbigh)
Harmsworth, Sir R. L. (Caithness)


Balfour, George (Hampstead)
Davison, Sir W. H. (Kensington, S.)
Herbert, Dennis (Hertford, Watford)


Benn, Com. Ian H. (Greenwich)
Doyle, N. Grattan
Hinds, John


Billing, Noel Pemberton-
Entwistle, Major C. F.
Jackson, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. F. S.


Bowyer, Captain G. E. W.
Fildes, Henry
Jephcott, A. R.


Burgoyne, Lieut.-Colonel A. H.
Freece, Sir Walter de
Jones, William Kennedy (Hornsey)


Campbell, J. D. G.
Gange, E. Stanley
Kelley, Major Fred (Rotherham)


Carter, R. A- D. (Man., Withington)
Ganzoni, Captain Francis John C.
Kenworthy, Lieut.-Commander J. M.


Casey, T. W.
Gould, James C.
Knights, Capt. H. N. (C'berwell, N.)


Child, Brigadier-General Sir Hill
Goulding, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward A.
Law, Alfred J. (Rochdale)


Cobb, Sir Cyril
Gray, Major Ernest (Accrington)
Lloyd, George Butler


Colfox, Major Wm. Phillips
Greenwood, William (Stockport)
Lloyd-Greame, Major P.


Coote, William (Tyrone, South)
Guinness, Lieut.-Col. Hon. W. E.
Lyle-Samuel, Alexander


Cory, Sir C. J. (Cornwall, St. Ives)
Gwynne Rupert S.
McLaren, Robert (Lanark, Northern)




MacVeagh, Jeremiah
Pickering, Lieut.-Colonel Emil W.
Terrell, George (Wilts, Chippenham)


Marriott, John Arthur Ransome
Pownall, Lieut.-Colonel Assheton
Terrell, Captain R. (Oxford, Henley)


Martin, Captain A. E.
Pulley, Charles Thornton
Tickler, Thomas George


Mitchell, William Lane
Rees, Capt. J. Tudor- (Barnstaple)
Waddington, R.


Moore, Major-General Sir Newton J.
Remnant, Colonel Sir James F.
Willey, Lieut.-Colonel F. V.


Murchison, C. K.
Renwick, George
Winterton, Major Earl


Nicholson, William G. (Petersfield)
Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)
Worsfold, Dr. T. Cato


Norton-Griffiths, Lieut.-Col. Sir John
Sprot, Colonel Sir Alexander



Palmer, Charles Frederick (Wrekin)
Sugden, W. H.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Perkins, Waiter Frank
Talbot, G. A. (Hemel Hempstead)
Sir F. Banbury and Mr. Remer.


Question put, and agreed to.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House doth agree with the Committee in the said Resolution."

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: May I make an appeal to hon. Members not to move the further Amendments on the paper, in order to leave us a little time before a Quarter past Eight to discuss the Corporation Profits Tax. All those subjects may be raised in Committee on the Finance Bill, and I think they can be much better dealt with at that stage.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House doth agree with the Committee in the said Resolution."

Sir ARTHUR FELL: I rise to oppose this Resolution, and I do so on behalf of the business community in the City of London. This is a new tax and the only one imposed in the Budget. On that ground alone I think it requires from this House greater consideration than those taxes which are only increases, although they may represent substantial sums. I think a proposal of this kind should be very carefully considered, and I hope it will receive from this House the consideration that it deserves. I agree with the right hon. Gentleman that Amendments can be better dealt with during the Committee stage of the Finance Bill than on the initiation of the tax in this Resolution. I think, however, that it has already been proved in the discussions which have taken place, that it is a favourable time when the Resolutions are before us to make suggestions to the Chancellor of the Exchequer, so that when the Finance Bill comes forward he may meet the difficulties and suggestions which may be made.
This is the first tax directed against the principle of limited liability companies in this country. I have heard the statement made many times in past years that the prosperity of this country and this great Empire is very largely due to
and is bound up with the principles of the Limited Liability Companies Acts, under which so many great and flourishing companies have been organised and carried on. Our Companies Acts have formed the basis of nearly all company law throughout the world. They have been adopted in most of the Colonies and have been admirably administered by our Courts, and the company laws which have grown up under them have been effective to such an extent that they have proved to be a most useful method of carrying on business, and they have teen an enormous benefit to this country. Those great new possessions which we have acquired, and for which we have mandates now, all need the assistance of the Companies Acts to enable them to re-develop. Companies will be formed under the Limited Liability Companies Acts, and they will be the means not only of opening up those countries to civilisation, but they will have a good effect on this country, not only in the case of the persons who make investments in those companies but also in regard to the amount of money which will be spent through them with manufacturers supplying rails and machinery and all those things which follow the development of a new country. The Limited Liabilities Acts will tend to help in this direction more than anything else that can be suggested.
The Chancellor of the Exchequer expects to get £50,000,000 from this tax, and that represents a tax upon £1,000,000,000 of profits which will fall within the purview of this tax. When the tax was suggested last week, we really did not understand what it meant, and we did not realise the enormous number of concerns which it would cover. It was described by the right hon. Gentleman as a Corporation Tax upon profits and concerns with a limited liability engaged in trade and similar transactions, and from other remarks which the right hon. Gentleman made we gathered that it was a tax on companies which were engaged in trade in this country, such as cotton mills, iron mills, drapery stores in
London, and that kind of business. We now find that it extends to much more than those I have mentioned. Later on, the Chancellor of the Exchequer announced that it would apply to corporations under the Statute, and that covers the whole of the railway companies, lighting companies, tramway companies and the enormous number of waterworks and other companies with immense capital and very large revenues, and all these would come under the new tax.
It has been explained that it also covers all investment and mortgage companies, trust companies, and businesses of that kind, and, in fact, any trade or business in this country. Investment and mortgage companies invest their money in Canada, New Zealand and other countries; they are well managed and draw handsome and substantial profits from their investments in other countries, and they will come within the purview of this Act. The Chancelleor went on to say
The prosperous concerns with large pre-War profits escape liability to Excess Profits Duty and they pay on what all of us believe is an unduly low scale.
If they were prosperous before the War and have made no further profits during the War, there is no reason why they should be taxed at all for Excess Profits. I should be glad if the Chancellor of the Exchequer would explain why he considers concerns of the kind I have described have not been taxed sufficiently in the past. They pay 6s. in the £ on their profits, and if they earn Excess Profits they pay like any other concern. I think if we have prosperous concerns that is a matter the country should congratulate itself upon, and I do not think that they should be subjected to any tax of this kind.
8 P.M.
The right hon. Gentleman said that these companies enjoy special privileges by law for which they may well be asked to pay some acknowledgment. It is true that they have a limited liability, but they also have disadvantages. They have not only to publish the whole list of their partners every year at Somerset House, but they have to file their balance sheets, which ordinary private concerns do not. Consequently they have disadvantages as well as advantages and they should not on this account be liable to a further tax beyond those paid by private individuals. The right hon. Gentleman says that the undivided profits of the companies pay
no Super-tax. I remember that this point was brought forward by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Paisley (Mr. Asquith) who was under the impression that they did not pay the ordinary Income Tax of 6s. in the £, but they do pay that tax. It is true that money may be distributed that might be put to' reserve, and it might have the effect of bringing some of the shareholders under the Super-tax, and they would then have to pay upon that money. Surely it is not for the sake of taxing a few people who may be escaping the Super-tax that the undivided profits of a limited liability company, which already pay 6s. in the £, are to be thus further taxed. Why should all the shareholders suffer, because there may be a few who, owing to Treasury Regulations, escape payment of Super-tax. I believe it would be possible for the Treasury, by a very small alteration of the Finance Act, to make such people liable for undivided profits put to reserve. The Surveyors of Taxes, when they go through the balance sheets of the company, could easily ascertain how much is put to reserve and how, if it had been divided, shareholders would be affected so far as the Super-tax is concerned. I am sure it is not beyond the ability of Treasury officials to carry out such an inquiry, and I think it would be much better than taxing everybody in the company because some few may escape the Super-tax. One of the financial papers described this Corporation Tax as a Super-tax on companies. Were they quite sure what they were writing about when they said that? The Chancellor of the Exchequer told us he had sent out to some of the colonies to make inquiries as to the nature of the taxes which those colonies have put on. Some of them have put a Super-tax on companies where the profits have exceeded 10 per cent., but this tax will fall upon companies which pay only 2 per cent. or even less, and it will be at exactly the same rate as upon the companies which pay 10 per cent. and more. I cannot see, therefore, that it is a Super-tax when it is so levied. The right hon. Gentleman told us that the experts he had sent out to make inquiries had not been able to suggest any form which would be acceptable. I believe the Canadian plan works out pretty well. It is a charge on profits above 10 per cent. with a rising scale. In South Africa it is
the same. There they tried to establish a sort of Super-tax. They put a tax of 10 per cent. on companies earning profits exceeding £25,000 per annum, utterly regardless of the amount of their capital, so that a company which earned £25,000 had to pay the extra tax while another company earning just under £25,000 paid nothing.
There is another point I wish to bring before the Chancellor of Exchequer. He has called it a tax of 1s. in the £l, but it represents a great deal more than that. Debenture holders and preference shareholders will not pay this tax; it is to fall entirely on the ordinary shareholders. In order to see the way in which it would operate,. I turned up in the library the accounts of two of the biggest railways in the River Plate, the capital for which had been found by Englishmen, and which undertakings, too, were managed by Englishmen. The first of the companies had an ordinary share capital of £30,000,000, and it had raised somewhere about the same amount in debentures and preference shares. The second company had a capital of £28,000,000 in ordinary shares and had raised just about the same amount in preference shares and debentures. I gather, therefore, that they were limited in regard to the amount of debentures and preference shares by the extent of their ordinary shareholding. In each case this tax will fall upon the ordinary shareholder to the extent of 2s. in the £l. It will have to be deducted from the profits, and consequently the profits divided among the ordinary shareholders will be subject to a deduction of 8s. in the £1, while the debenture and preference shareholders will only suffer a deduction of 6s. in the £1. That is a very serious matter for many people, and I heard one large investor in English railway stock say that he pays 6s. in the £l on the dividends from his ordinary shares; he pays another 6s. as Super-tax and now he is to be called upon to pay a further 2s., making the total burden 14s. in the £1. Assuming that his income is £30,000 a year he would be £2,000 or £3,000 a year richer if his money were invested in debentures or preference shares rather than in ordinary stock. I submit that the man who has put his money in the ordinary shares has done far more than the debenture holder or the preference shareholder, and therefore has
a greater claim for consideration in this matter.
There is one other point to which I wish to draw the right hon. Gentleman's attention, because it seems to me in contradiction of the Report of the Commission on the Income Tax. They have decided, as, I understand, that persons whose joint incomes do not exceed £300 a year shall not pay Income Tax, whereas, under this proposal, they will be called upon to pay Income Tax in another form to the extent of 2s. in the £l. People living on small incomes derived from shares of this kind will in future have a deduction of 2s. in the £1, even although their incomes do not exceed £300. I do not think that the Income Tax Commissioners, when they made their recommendation, ever intended that they should be so subject. I therefore hope that the Chancellor of the Exchequer will give relief on that point.

Mr. WATERSON: The few moments that are left at my disposal, if the Chancellor of the Exchequer is to speak, are quite inadequate for the important matter to which I desire to draw his attention, namely, the position of the cooperative societies with regard to this tax. When the right hon. Gentleman made his Budget statement, I noticed that he said, with regard to the Royal Commission on Income Tax that he would reserve his judgment, as hon. Members would doubtless wish to reserve theirs. Not a word was said about the Corporation Profits Tax being applied to the co-operative movement, but on the Wednesday it was drawn out in the discussion, in answer to certain statements made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Peebles (Sir D. Maclean), and we found for the first time, much to our surprise, that the co-operative movement would come within the scope of this tax. I want to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how he intends to apply this tax to the co-operative movement. There is an extremely keen feeling in the country against his attutude on this question. It will affect more than 4,000,000 men and women in this country, who are poor people from the beginning, and do not come within the scope of Income Tax. We are anxious to know whether the tax is to be levied on gross profits, on net profits, or on the amount allocated to members in the shape of repayment of
the enhanced charges on commodities, or whether it will be levied on the amount allocated to reserve in the shape of grants for educational or even charitable purposes. Paying, as we do, hundreds of pounds towards charities in practically every town and village of the country, it seems a crying shame that we should be called upon to pay a tax for carrying out a duty of that character.
I admit that it is a complex problem, and I am anxious that the right hon. Gentleman should explain how he intends to deal with it I am sorry that so much time has been taken up already, because it is a most important matter, affecting, as I have said, 4,000,000 working people in this country. The hon. Member opposite (Sir A. Fell) spoke at considerable length in the interests of what he declared to be a few people in the City of London. His own words were, "a few friends in the City of London." Here is a matter which affects practically the destiny of 4,000,000 of the people of this country, and it is simply to be put on one side and ignored. It is exceedingly unfair, and I want to enter my emphatic protest against this procedure, and, if possible, to secure from the Chancellor of the Exchequer some explanation as to how he intends to apply the tax, so that we may know where we are and what we are to do in the future. The development of our movement is as important as that of any limited liability company, and we have a right to know where we are. It is exceedingly unjust, and I question the legality of it. It would be interesting to know if the right hon. Gentleman has taken a legal opinion with regard to it.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: I desire to move, "That the further consideration of the Resolution be now adjourned."

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: If it is the desire of the House that the Debate should be resumed at eleven o'clock, I cannot resist it, but it would be very awkward.

Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: Need it be taken at eleven o'clock? In view of the very great importance of this Corporation Profits Tax, I appeal to the Government for further time.

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: When I requested hon. Members not to continue
yesterday, the understanding was that we should try and finish by a quarter past eight, but that, if that was not possible, we should resume at eleven. In the moment or two that are left, may I say, in reply to the hon. Member for Kettering (Mr. Waterson), that I do not propose to levy the tax on that part of the so-called profits of co-operative societies which is returned to purchasers as a dividend or bonus in proportion to their purchases. That would be excluded before the basis of assessment is fixed.

Mr. WATERSON: Am I to understand that the right hon. Gentleman will not bring within the scope of this tax money that is devoted to educational or charitable purposes?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I cannot say that. The law does not exempt charitable donations from taxation.

Bill ordered to be brought in upon the said Resolutions, and upon the Resolutions reported from the Committee of Ways and Means upon the 19th and 21st days of April, and agreed to by the House upon the 27th April by the Chairman of Ways and Means, Mr. Chamberlain, Sir Laming Worthington-Evans, Sir Eric Geddes and Mr. Baldwin.

Orders of the Day — FINANCE BILL,

"to grant certain Duties of Customs and Inland Revenue (including Excise), to alter other Duties, and to amend the Law relating to Customs and Inland Revenue (including Excise) and the National Debt, and to make further provision in connection with Finance," presented, accordingly, and read the first time; to be read a second time upon Monday next, and to be printed. [Bill 91.]

Orders of the Day — BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.

Sir D. MACLEAN: I think it will be for the convenience of the House if I ask my right hon. Friend (Mr. Bonar Law) whether the Prime Minister has returned to London, and whether, as far as he can say, he will be able to make a statement to-morrow on the San Remo Conference?

Mr. BONAR LAW: I am obliged to my right hon. Friend for putting that ques-
tion, as I am sure it will be for the convenience of the House to know what to-morrow's business will be. The Prime Minister has returned, and will make a statement as the first business to-morrow.

Sir D. MACLEAN: What business will be taken after that?

Mr. BONAR LAW: It depends upon whether there be a long statement.

IRELAND.

WORMWOOD SCRUBS PRISONERS (REFUSAL OF FOOD).

Mr. T. P. O'CONNOR: I beg to move, "That this House do now adjourn."
Anyone acquainted with Liverpool will appreciate what a strike at the docks at Liverpool really involves. I am so conscious of the disasters which are associated with a strike in that great city, from personal experience, that I feel I would not be discharging my duty as senior Member for the City of Liverpool if I did not use every method which Parliament permitted to try and avert such a disaster. I have been called in twice at Liverpool to try and settle a strike, and I am glad to say that I have succeeded on both occasions. As I speak this evening I cannot help recalling the tragic spectacle of those miles of splendid docks of those hundreds if not thousands of ships, of those tens of thousands of working people, all remaining stagnant in, perhaps, the greatest maritime city in the world. It is my sense of the gigantic loss to the trade and to the people of Liverpool, and especially to my own constituents, that compels me to raise this question to-night. I hope I may be successful in getting some assurances from the Government which will help the desire of my hon. Friend the Member for St. Helens (Mr Sexton), who is the able and honoured Secretary of the Dockers' Union, and myself, to avert this disaster. In order to do that, I think my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary should have his mind a little refreshed by my suggesting to him the causes which lie behind the threat of a strike, and the methods by which those causes could be removed. The main cause is sympathy with the prisoners at present at Wormwood Scrubs.
A large number of these prisoners are on hunger-strike, and nearly all of them are untried prisoners. The Leader of the House the other day, in a moment of frank and honourable candour, declared that no one could refuse sympathy with men who were willing to go through all the tortures and face all the perils of death by hunger in pursuit of what they regarded as a good cause. I do not think the right hon. Gentleman will deny that there has been, especially among the Irish population, an intense feeling of excitement. I read in the papers that crowds have been around Wormwood Scrubs during the last few evenings and have signified their feelings in every way that naturally occurs to Irishmen, that many of them have, as in the case of Mountjoy, found relief and hope in prayer, and that altogether there are all the symptoms that show sentiment both deep and genuine.
I hope the right hon. gentleman will not make answer to these sympathisers that the prisoners in Wormwood Scrubs are there because they are criminals, and that they are kept there for the purpose of putting down crime. My own opinion is that if one were to examine the evidence in the hands of the Government one would find very little proof in the case of any of these men of anything but what the Government may regard as unsound political opinion. Political opinion, however unsound or extreme it may be, is defended by all our traditions and principles against interference by the Government, and especially by militarism. A protest against militarism is not a moral offence, and it is not, exept under specific circumstances, even a legal offence. When you see in Ireland as you do to-day a great army with implements of war, tanks, machine guns, areoplanes, and the like, are you surprised that the people of London, Liverpool and Glasgow regard these men as the victims, not of criminal purposes, but of protest and of opinion? I wish to explain so far as I may what lies behind this very serious, and in some cases perilous, protest. What really lies behind it is the opinion of the Irishmen of Liverpool, Glasgow and London, of America and of all the world, that the tortures to which these men are subjecting themselves are justifiable and patriotic protests against the militarist government of the country, and events in Ireland are giving too much
justification to this view of the action of these men. I regret to have to make the declaration, but I say it with a full sense of responsibility that militarism is running loose and wild, that there have been in Ireland within the last few weeks what I may call Amritsars on a small scale. Three men were shot down at Milltown Malbay without any excuse. Two men were killed in the same way at Ark-low. In Thurles the police ran wild, and fired into houses and the lives of the people were only saved by taking refuge in cellars. In Fermoy, for several hours, the soldiers broke loose from all discipline, and with crowbars and trench tools, from 8.30 to 10, sacked the town. These proceedings have not, so far as I know, led to inquiries.
Our people in Liverpool who are threatening this violent form of protest are protesting, not in favour of crime, but against opinion, however extreme, being regarded as crime. They know that of the sixty-nine Sinn Fein Members returned as representatives of Ireland by the opinion of the people of the country, every one of them, except seven, have been put in gaol. Will anyone declare that these sixty men are criminals, except in opinion, if opinion can be regarded as criminal, or that any one of them has made speeches in favour of or recommending assassination? Will he contend when the Dublin Corporation was elected, comprising a majority of Sinn Fein candidates, and the Government arrested within ten days a large number of these men so as to destroy their majority in the Corporation, that that was done because of criminal acts of extreme opinion? Will he tell me that the twenty-five Republican members of the other corporations in Ireland who were arrested were arrested because they were criminals? Will he tell me that on of the prisoners the Chief Secretary recently allowed to be liberated from Wormwood Scrubs, the boy Foy, was a criminal? He was 17 years of age, and he is the son of a policeman. There is an affidavit, I believe, in the possession of the authorities that he had never attended a political meeting in his life. The case was brought before the Court. I do not know whether it was because of the publicity given to the case by this action or because of some compunctious visitings in the mind of the
Chief Secretary and the Home Secretary that this boy was released two days afterwards. Here is a boy, 17 years of age, the son of a policeman, who had never attended a political gathering in his life, detained for three months in gaol on suspicion of being a criminal. Is not that the reductio ad absurdum of the whole system, of which Wormwood Scrubs is simply the consummation? Would anybody say that the Lord Mayor of Dublin, who has just recently been released, and has suffered injuries to his health from which possibly he may never entirely recover, was a criminal, except opinion be criminal? I never Saw the gentleman in my life, but I understand he was known to his colleagues in the corporation for many years as a man who could be called in England of pacifist opinion. The same is said of Alderman O'Brien, who has recently been released after hunger strike. War on opinion is not war on crime. On the contrary, war on opinion is the parent and begettor of crime.
I will give a few more instances which account for the state of feeling we see to-day. Take the action of the Government, of which the Home Secretary is a distinguished Member, in dealing with certain proceedings which were inaugurated by the Sinn Fein party. They thought it was desirable—and I do not see that anyone could blame them—to take an opportunity of investigating the industrial resources of Ireland and finding out the best method for developing those resources. This movement, which was not a political movement, and in which Unionists took part as well as Sinn Feiners, was treated as a criminal conspiracy. The investigations were hampered in every way, and when the Industrial Committee of Nationalists and Sinn Feiners went to the Town Hall in Cork to continue their investigations and suggest their proposals, a body of soldiers with fixed bayonets went in, and in the presence of the Lord Mayor and Corporation, turned them out of the building. The funds of an insurance company, which surely was not a criminal conspiracy, have been seized. Domiciliary visits have taken place with a recklessness and with a series of savage incidents which are a disgrace to this country. Take the case of the treatment of Mrs. Clarke. Mr. Clarke is a Sinn Feiner who was recently elected
a member of the Corporation. There was an attempt to arrest him. When the soldiers went to the house Mr. Clarke was not there, but his wife was there, and I speak on the authority of Mr. Erskine Childers, a distinguished Englishman, who says that this domiciliary visit was accompanied by
A scene of repulsive brutality, all the more so in that officers set the example: Oaths, insults and threats directed at the unfortunate woman, who is kept below shivering in night attire while the ground floor is searched. Her little boy begins to scream, but she is turned back with the bayonet from going up to him. A mahogany door is wantonly smashed in, though she offers the key for it, and other vandalisms perpetrated. Then to the living rooms, where even the children's beds are searched. Then to the skylight leading to the roof, where she is forced to remain while one officer hands a revolver to another, saying, 'If he is there, use it on him.' At length away, leaving her exhausted and struggling to close the jammed hall door. 'That woman cannot close the—door now,' is the genial farewell. All this in your name, after your five years' War to save the world and humanity from the militarism of Germany.
I do my best, and have done so all my life, to advance constitutional as opposed to revolutionary methods for obtaining reform in Ireland or in England. I have never lent any countenance, nor will I lend any countenance, to methods of revolution and crime for the purpose of defending the rights of the masses either of England or of Ireland, but in the face of incidents such as I have described, with militarism so rampant in Ireland, it is no wonder that millions of the Irish people, not merely in Ireland, but in England—where there are 2,500,000 of them—and in America, where there are 20,000,000 of them, have a feeling of blind resentment against the Government. Blind resentment is a very bad thing. I ask the Home Secretary, who is mainly responsible for good order in this country, is there no danger in the repercussion of these events. I do not mean amongst the Irish alone. It is possible that if they resort to violent methods militarism can put that down for the moment in blood, as it is trying to do in Ireland, and as it is by putting down Nationalism in Ireland; but it will not end there. I suggest in the presence of the Members of the Labour party, and I know I express their thoughts when I say, that in England, in Scotland and in Wales, there is no such denial of constitutional liberties as there is in Ireland. Even here, the
passions of the War, and the desire for a greater share in the country for which so many millions of men have died, the recklessness in regard to human life which must come to men who have been in the trenches and on the battlefield for four or five years, have produced a dangerous feeling of unrest among certain sections of the population of this country which it is unwise to provoke.
Many a time I have said to hon. Friends of mine from Ireland, but of different opinions, "Take it from me, for I know Ireland pretty well, though I have lived out of it for many years—I was speaking of the days when we were more than 70 on these Benches—that the Irish party, from which you so violently dissent, and whose actions you so strongly disapprove; this Irish Constitutional party in the House of Commons is the only breakwater between Ireland and anarchy,'' just as a rational and powerful Labour party in this country is also the best breakwater against any gospel of anarchy in this country. All these prophecies and warnings of mine were discredited and disbelieved, but look at the number of the Irish Constitutional party on these Benches now and at the anarchy and excesses in Ireland, on the other hand. They are proofs of the wisdom of my forecast. I ask my right hon. Friend to lend his great influence towards producing a change of policy and a change of heart among his colleagues in regard to the Irish people, and to trust them to give them large and generous powers dealing with Ireland. It is only Irishmen who can establish liberty and order in Ireland. As long as such a policy is pursued as I have briefly denounced to-night, I do assure the Government that they are risking everything that is valuable in the life of the country and encouraging the growth of anarchy. You have to make your choice between two policies: The one I will call the Amritsar policy, the police of force and bloodshed. The other I will call the South African policy. There are hon. and gallant men, honest men, in this House, who under their breath are ready to claim that Amritsar is the best method of governing the Empire. But on the morrow of the War it was the link of freedom that kept all the remote parts of this mighty Empire together. The other policy is the South African policy. I quote in favour of that policy the words of the greatest South African,
the man who was friendliest to this nation, who ran the greatest risks to keep up the connection between his country and this, General Smuts, who, in a pronouncement of solemn warning, declared that either this nation would give Ireland self-government or Ireland would ruin the Empire.

Mr. SEXTON: Nobody will accuse me of being unfriendly or antagonistic to the cause of Ireland or the legitimate constitutionally expressed opinions of the Irish people. Inside this House and outside by public utterances which are on record I have shown my sympathies with the claims of the Irish people of a constitutional character. Having said that I do not want to repeat what has been said already by the hon. Member for the Scotland Division of Liverpool (Mr. O'Connor). But I have a higher duty than that, and it touches me very closely indeed. This question of unrest in Liverpool is one which affects me as a responsible trade union leader there and also as a British citizen, and I want to put myself right both in this House and with my own Member and the general public when I say that as a responsible official of a trade union, which is very seriously affected by this disturbances if the disturbance does take place—and I am afraid there is some danger of it—the action will be entirely unofficial and irresponsible and will not be recognised by the authorised heads to the association to which I belong. I am vigorously opposed to the policy which is known as direct action. I will protest and continue to protest as long as I live against the industrial weapon being used for political purposes.
I am fortified in that not only by the rules of my own organisation but by the opinion of the whole trade union movement expressed at the conference recently held in London. I am opposed to it because it lets loose elements which are hard to control and the first to suffer. It is bad enough to be compelled to have to use it in industrial disputes, but it is a different thing altogether to let loose that weapon when a question of Imperial politics is in dispute. It means the end of all constitutional action. But I have even a greater argument than that. I have the honour to be the responsible officer of a trade union of something like 70,000 men in the United Kingdom who are composed of different political
thoughts, and I should say that over 50 per cent. of them would be opposed to any action being taken on this question. I am elected and appointed to carry out the duties of the trade union which I represent without outraging the opinions of any one of the sections who hold different political views, and I should be false to my trust if I yielded to any threat—and I may say incidentally that I have been threatened—that unless I used the industrial power of the organisation to which I belong for certain purposes I should be in some danger. Threatened men live long. I have lived a long time myself and I have lived through a series of threats, and I refuse now to bow to the threat of any man or any section who are irresponsible and who endanger the organisation which looks to me to carry out, in an impartial and just manner, the trust imposed on me.
Having said all that, let me say again, in order to make myself perfectly clear, that I have already taken the responsibility, and will continue to take the responsibility, of advising our members in Liverpool and elsewhere not to take any notice of the agitation going on in this direction, which is contrary to the rules and the principles of the Union and contrary to the welfare of the members. To do anything else I would be false to the trust imposed upon me. While I am taking every precaution, and while my colleagues are at work to-night to prevent, if possible, any dislocation of the trade of Liverpool and other ports, I fear that the spirit of the men is getting beyond our official control. I will tell you why. There is a very large number of Irishmen in Liverpool and in other ports who have very strong opinions on this question. There are in those ports men who are not Irishmen, but are simply lovers of justice, and they are influenced by the fact that men are taken away from their homes and shoved into gaol without any charge or reason being given as to why they are in gaol, and the British spirit of fair play is inspiring these men to say, "If this happens in Ireland to-day, it will happen in England to-morrow." As a matter of fact, it has happened in England. Two of my own members and one of the Seamen's Union, who have not been in Ireland for four years, but were carrying on their simple duties as workmen at the docks at Liverpool on board ship, were suddenly arrested only two weeks ago,
without any cause or explanation, and were taken to the military barracks at Seaforth, and from there were spirited away, no one knows where, neither relatives nor mates. And these are Englishmen, men who have no particular sympathy with Sinn Feinism. In fact, they have repelled the thought of being associated with Sinn Feiners. Yet they are asking themselves the question, "If this can happen to men we have worked alongside of for three or four years, what is to prevent it happening to us?"
There are members of my own in Liverpool, sons of Irishmen who came from Ireland to work at the docks. There is an honoured clergyman in Liverpool, Father Hayes, who has a relative in Wormwood Scrubs. There are men in Liverpool to-day who are brothers or relatives of those locked up in Wormwood Scrubs. They have considerable influence among their workmates, and when they tell those workmates that relatives have been torn from their homes in Ireland and deported to Wormwood Scrubs, it 'is only natural that the statement has such an effect that all the official declarations we can make are absolutely useless in the face of the stern facts. I would be the last in the world to suggest that the Government should give way to undue intimidation. I resent it myself, and I am resenting it now. I am running a big risk in taking the stand I am taking. I shall continue to resent it. But I respectfully suggest to the Members of the Government, and particularly to the Home Secretary, that there is no humiliation in recognising that the application of simple justice is no climb-down for any Government or for anyone else. A man's courage is displayed when he sees he is wrong, and confesses he is wrong.
Let me make this last appeal. My feelings are such that if I express myself freely I might possibly say too much, and I do not want to do that. I am speaking with a full sense of responsibility, and my fear is that, in spite of all I have done, in spite of all I am prepared to do to the end, to-morrow morning and to-morrow night action will be taken of such a character that to recover from its effects may take months. My members in Liverpool are divided in their political opinion, but I should say that over 50 per cent. are opposed to any idea of violence or of the using of the machinery of the union in support of Sinn Fein. A grave danger is
that the men may be influenced by what they consider to be the grave injustice of the Government. While I and my colleagues on the Labour Benches are appealing to the men to rely upon constitutional action, it makes it very difficult for us when we find that our men are impressed with the idea that the Government themselves are acting unconstitutionally by arresting men and shoving them into gaol without giving them an opportunity of defence. If the men who believe that an injustice has been done to their fellow-countrymen in Wormwood Scrubs begin action to-morrow, and their influence spreads in Liverpool and elsewhere, or an attempt is made to bring out those who do not believe in direct action, there will be a physical conflict of the two sections which will assume such a character that the peace of the whole city and of industries throughout the country will be jeopardised. You will be approaching the very verge of civil war if you do not recognise the facts.
9.0 P.M.
With the exception of one or two isolated and spasmodic cases this old country is jogging along satisfactorily, her trade is increasing, and prosperity is on the wave in spite of all the obstacles to be surmounted. In view of all that, is it worth while to disturb the situation, and in spite of the evidence we had in this House to-night of men who made money out of the four years' struggle attempting to evade the responsibilities in the Division that was lately taken? Luckily the good sense of the House recognised the true value of that opposition, and I am proud of it. The country, say what you will, is prosperous. We may have a huge debt, but we are going the right way of paying, that debt off. The trade of the world is at our doors and our people with very few exceptions are going on very well. There is nothing to interfere with that prospect except these petty obstacles, which I submit should be removed. Except some security is given, to the Irish population if you like, of which I am one, and which I have endeavoured in my official capacity to dissociate from my responsibility, to allay the spirit which has been aroused, then I tremble for the industrial future of this country and our influence in keeping the peace, as we all wish to do.

Sir D. MACLEAN: I am sure that the Government will recognise that there is
no reason whatever to complain of either the hone or temper of the speeches of the two hon. Members who have addressed the House. The moderation of statement and the statesmanlike outlook with which both hon. Members faced a very great problem make it, I think, easy for the House to discuss this question in a proper temper, and I hope respectfully. I do not for one moment minimise the terribly serious state of the conditions of Ireland. There is a state of affairs there which is not distinguishable from open rebellion. I quite agree that it is not practicable for the Executive to face the ordinary trials of offences by the ordinary means in Ireland at the present moment. I frankly admit that. But the condition of Ireland, I am quite certain, will not be bettered in the least degree by the continued application without any glimpse of hope of the present coercive measures insisted on by the Executive. The idea of 20 years of resolute government as a cure for Irish aspirations has completely broken down and we are faced in spite of the increased severity not only of police but of military measures with increased opposition, not only in violence, but in area. That is not the real Ireland which we see to-day any more than when one views, as sometimes some of us have, some friend of ours in a fever of delirium whose actions have to be restrained in order to prevent him doing himself harm. In such circumstances we would say, "That is not my friend, but it is the fever which is doing it, and the way to cure it is, not by tying the patient down, but to seek some curative method to remedy the disease which causes that condition."
That is all I have to say on the general case, but I wish to press once again upon my right hon. Friend a suggestion or proposal which I made some days ago and which is based on my own practical experience, and, at the risk of repetition, I want to put on record again what that experience was. After the Easter rebellion of 1916, hundreds of Irish political arrests were made under a Regulation made under the Defence of the Realm Act which enabled the executive to place in custody anyone whom they thought was under suspicion of being likely to cause any damage to the peace of His Majesty. Those are not the exact words, but that is the purport. The Advisory Committee which had been dealing for,
I think, eighteen months with the question of persons of enemy nationality who were suspected of having anything to do with the enemies of this country, was asked to undertake the duty of examining into the grounds which were alleged by the Executive as reasonable cause for detaining these political prisoners in custody. It is, of course, open to any person now in Wormwood Scrubs Prison to apply to the Home Secretary that he should be brought before an Advisory Committee and have his case heard. It is quite true no such committee is at present in existence, but it could be set up. None of those internees applied, but what action was taken? I think my right hon. Friend was Home Secretary some part of the time. There was a committee presided over by a distinguished judge, Mr. Justice Sankey, with whom was Mr. Justice Younger and Mr. Justice Pim, an Irish judge, and four Members of Parliament, of whom I was one, and we sat at Wands-worth and Wormwood Scrubs. None of these men had applied to be heard by this committee, but what was done was this. They were brought before that Advisory Committee.
Before sitting there we have had the advantage of hearing what the responsible officials in Ireland had to say, first with regard to the general question and secondly with regard to the individual men concerned. We had a dossier of each one of these men. The only witnesses who were heard were, so to speak, witnesses for the prosecution, and there was no danger attending any of those officials other than the danger which they always experience in the performance of their duties in the troubled conditions of Ireland. I quite admit that there may be considerable difficulty in doing this at the present moment, but that is no reason why this process should not be repeated and why we should not get a Judge, if he will consent to do so, assisted by other persons, to go into the cases in this way. But I would suggest that on this occasion there should not be any Members of Parliament on the committee. I think there is no need for that. We should desire, of course, that the names should not be given of those who came before the committee as witnesses, and that it should be kept as secret as possible so that we should run as little risk as was necessary. If we could get one or two of the Judges, and persuade
them to act, and go over first of all the documentary evidence, and then to sit at Wormwood Scrubs and to hear what had to be said by the prisoners or internees who are at these places at the present time, we should have at least taken one step in the right direction. When the committee to which I have referred sat the prisoners over and over again came and said, "We do not recognise your authority." That was their position. But owing to the skill and the urbanity of the learned Judge, Mr. Justice Sankey, although there might have been one or two exceptions, all of them, I think, ultimately consented to make their statements and freely answer questions. That is the procedure which I now suggest; I know that it does not accord with our ideas of British justice to sit in secret and to hear one side of the case, without hearing any witnesses for the defence, so to speak. But we are living in very difficult times, and my point is that it would be so much better than doing nothing and saying, "We can do nothing." We have this experience before us, and it is a remarkable experience, of letting one or two learned Judges hear what these men have to say, and I think that the Executive would be doing a very good thing if they followed the advice which I am now very earnestly pressing upon them.
What is really the driving force in this case of public sympathy with these men? It is that they have not been charged. They have had no opportunity of stating their case before an impartial tribunal. They have not been charged before any court. These men have been placed in prison. I suggest that you are placing in the hands of those who desire to make trouble a most formidable weapon, by creating sympathy with these men in the minds of the British people. We all know that nothing touches the Briton more deeply than the fact that a man is deprived of personal liberty without trial by his peers. He may be a poor man or a rich man, but he expects to be tried by his equals. I admit that it may be argued that what I have suggested is not at present a practicable proposal. I admit that it cannot be done at the present moment in Ireland. But here you have these men in England and you have experience to show that something of the kind can be done. For the life of me I cannot see why the Government should
not take some action of this kind. It would be a first step, and it is these little first steps that count. You cannot expect to make a great sweep in dealing with matters of this kind, but you ought to try to make some progress, and this would be a step in the right direction. It is a chance for beginning to influence public opinion in favour of authority rather than give with two hands weapons to anarchy. I think it is possible. I appeal to the Government for some philosophic act of statesmanship, however small it may be. It is no use saying that we cannot do anything excepting to continue coercive and repressive measures. It will not do. It simply will not do at this time of day. There might have been some case for it years ago, but it will not do now. The time has gone past. I leave it there to the right hon. Gentleman (the Home Secretary). I know and he knows the truth of all I have said. I am certain that he is in sympathy with me from his knowledge of the subject. While I make this appeal, I am not asking him for a definite answer now. [An HON. MEMBER: "Why not?"] He may have to consult the Prime Minister when he comes back to-night. I urge him to consult the Prime Minister after this Debate, in view of the two speeches which we have heard and which are really worthy of the most serious consideration. I leave it there with that last appeal. It may be the last chance before this terrible weapon, which we hear threatened, begins to be used, and once that begins no man knows where it will stop. I hope he will bear in mind what I have suggested, and that even to-night we may hear that the Government will give us some hope of a better future.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: I would like to bring to the notice of hon. Members a fact which concerns my own constituency. The night before last the whole of the dock labourers in the port of Hull came out on strike and remained out for 24 hours. The reason given was that an award under the recent inquiry of 16s. a day was not retrospective and did not take effect until May 10th. That was the reason given, but I want to tell the House how the men were brought out. Without any warning, a few speakers went round from dock to dock, made their speeches, and the men simply came out. That is the temper of that particular
section of organised workers to whom my hon. Friend the Member for St. Helens (Mr. Sexton) referred. He will bear me out in this, because he is the principal official of the union concerned, that, although the ostensible reason for that lightning strike, which I' am glad to say was settled—I did not go up specially for that, but I arrived there last night in time to know the matter had been settled, thanks to the efforts of the officials and others—was the demand for higher wages, behind it was a general dissatisfaction, with which this treatment of these prisoners is not unconnected. There are many Irishmen amongst these workers in Hull, and each one of them at present has his feelings injured and is a centre of unrest amongst the men he works alongside of in the docks. What the hon. Member for St. Helens has said to-night, I can say, from my own personal experience in Hull last night, and from what I was told by some of the men's leaders, is not a bit exaggerated, and the situation is extremely delicate. That being the case, might I ask the Home Secretary to explain one or two things'? Up till two days ago these men in Wormwood Scrubs were receiving rather good treatment on the whole. Why has it suddenly been changed? There is a man in the prison called Reagh. [Mr. LYNN: "A German name!"] He is an Irishman. The man is dying, and I do not think it is a matter for jest. Hon. Members may laugh, but we make allowances for the last remains of the anti-Papist bigots. However, this man's sister came over this morning to see her brother, and went to the Home Office, and the Home Office gave her a permit. She went to the prison and was refused permission to see her brother. She went back to the Home Office, and the Home Office officials, who have been very courteous and sympathetic, gave her a special letter. She went back again to the prison with it, and she was not admitted. Recently also the men's solicitor, who is acting for them, has been refused permission. Why is this? Is it that the Home Office is trying to follow out one policy and is being blocked by the Irish Office? I do not expect the right hon. Gentleman to admit that, but I would like an explanation, if possible, to dispose of that theory. I am not sure that the Home Office is not quite prepared to take a step forward
if it not blocked by some influence, actual like the Irish Office, or occult, which is possibly now on the other side of the floor. I hope we shall get some plea for sanity from that quarter. The statement has been made in connection with this matter that they have a Committee they can appeal to, but I am informed that the Committee they go before is a secret departmental committee, and all that happens is that the men are cross-examined, and the procedure is not that described by the right hon. Member for Peebles (Sir D. Maclean), but is more the procedure of a French juge d'examination, the French system of interrogation of a person to get him committed, and that is why these men in many cases refuse to go before that committee. Am I right in what I am saying, or is there a real committee to which these men could appeal, and which would sympathetically and thoroughly consider their cases?
Some of these men in prison now, who may be dying at this moment, are lads of seventeen, and there are several of them under the age of twenty. Before hon. Members attempt to stiffen up the Government to commit the blind folly of allowing this thing to go on, I hope they will reflect on the youth of these young fellows. My hon. Friend, the Member for the Scotland Division (Mr. O'Connor), tells me there are a great many of them only 17 years of age. What is the world to think if lads of this age die on our hands? There is loyal opinion in the Colonies and in Australia and Canada which feels very bitterly about this matter, as the Home Secretary knows very well if he receives his own intelligence reports. I have always said what I am going to say now on platforms outside this House before audiences that might be described as largely composed of the left wing of the Labour movement of this country, audiences that contained many avowed and proud Sinn Feiners. I condemn as strongly as I possibly can the present system of murder that is going on in Ireland. I think the shooting down of these young policemen, mostly fellow Irishmen and Roman Catholics, is quite inexcusable, and, as I have said before, it makes the task of those who are trying their best to plead for justice for Ireland and incidentally for England, extremely difficult; but having said that, I want to point out to hon. Members that this
policy, that is still being carried on by the Government, of arresting these men without charge or trial is doing no good whatever in Ireland. It is not restoring order, it is not stopping murders, and it is not stopping arson and terrorisation. It has failed utterly, and it is on the other hand rousing great masses of opinion in this country and in other countries in favour of the extreme movement in Ireland. It is possible to-day in Ireland for any shopkeeper who has a trade rival to get him put away, as the expression is, simply by going away and playing the part of a secret informer. It is possible to-day for any man who is jealous through some love affair to get anyone in Ireland who is not known as an out-and-out unionist incarcerated, and that being the case, from what I have heard I am satisfied that the majority of these men, if not all, are really excellent men who have simply been arrested on these sort of charges or because they are recognised leaders of the people. I beg the Government straight away to alter the whole policy and to give up this system of lettres de cachet, giving up this secrecy and no longer making ourselves appear uncivilised barbarians, as we do to-day, to many people who would otherwise be our friends.
There is some light on the Irish situation. I do not refer, of course, to the ridiculous measure that has been brought in by the Government, but I refer to a recent declaration in the United States of America that has not been noticed on this side, but which is a matter of profound significance. I refer to a statement of the hon. Member for Clare (Mr. De Valera) who styles himself, and is styled by many of his compatriots, "President of the Irish Republic." It is the statement that he recently made in the United States that the Irish people would be prepared to accept the same status towards this country that Cuba has towards the United States. That is a matter of tremendous importance, and I hope it has been noticed by hon. Members sitting on this side of the House, because the position of Cuba towards the United States is very analogous to the present relationship between Canada and this country. The United States has the right of supervision over foreign policy, and the right of entry in case of persecution of minorities in Cuba. I do not wish
to enlarge on it, but it is a ray of light, and it is because of that I mention it in making an appeal to the Government not to spoil that small chance. An hon. Member opposite declares that this declaration has been repudiated. If so—although once made, it at any rate shows some signs of a better future—it is directly to be traced to the extraordinary stupidity and, as some of us think, the wicked attitude assumed by the Government with regard to this system of persecution and arrest of these men without trial, and I do beg of the Government now not to be afraid, but to alter this policy before tragedy happens, the effects of which may be very far-reaching indeed and very tragic to our country.

Mr. THOMAS: There will be general agreement in the statement I make, that every section of the House, whatever their particular views of the Irish question may be, all join in deploring the present state of affairs in Ireland. I have been in this House long enough to know and appreciate the changed atmosphere in discussions of the Irish question. There is to-day, at least, this gained, that there is common agreement that the present state of affairs cannot continue, the present form of government must cease, and some solution of the Irish problem must be found. I do not think anyone would quarrel with that general proposition, but, at the same time, we are faced this evening with a very serious situation, and it is that the Irish question is likely not only to affect and disturb, but probably to paralyse, the British Trade Union movement. I ask the House to note the statement of my hon. Friend the Member for St. Helens (Mr. Sexton). His union is the union affected. He has membership on both sides, and he himself declared to-night that, speaking as an official of the union, he not only deplored the circumstances, but he would do all he could to prevent it taking place. That was his attitude. In the same way I am directly opposed to direct action. I do not want to repeat my reasons and my views, because they are well known, and were stated quite, recently before the House. But I do ask the House not merely to deal with this situation in an abstract way. If the strike takes place and the Government then capitulate to the forces of the strike, that is the way to encourage direct action. Let us agree to face that fact. We are entitled to be
heard in this House, not because we have more power or more influence, but because in many respects we have more responsibility. I know all too well how, when one gets up to state something that one knows is likely to happen, it is misunderstood, but the House do not appreciate the fact that the duty of a trade union leader is to act as a fire brigade. That is our position to-day. When we know there is likely to be a dispute that will affect other people, can we stand by without giving some words of advice? As a reference has been made to my own action in Ireland, I will deal with that. I had nothing whatever to do with the strike, was not consulted, and did not know it was likely to take place, when I found myself at Dublin on the day it took place. There was a complete and absolute stoppage. No one will dispute that.

Mr. LYNN: In part of Ireland.

Mr. THOMAS: Belfast was at work.

Mr. LYNN: And the whole of Ulster.

Mr. THOMAS: Certain parts of Ulster.

Mr. LYNN: The whole of it.

Mr. THOMAS: The whole was not at work.

Mr. LYNN: Yes.

Mr. THOMAS: I repeat that the whole was not at work, because some of the men claimed donations.

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER (Mr. Whitley): The hon. Member (Mr. Lynn) must not interrupt without rising in his seat, and asking leave.

Mr. THOMAS: I repeat that the stoppage was complete. The feeling in the City of Dublin and in the south of Ireland, whatever may be said to the contrary, was such that I am absolutely certain, if any of those prisoners had died, nothing would have prevented bloodshed of a serious kind happening. It may be argued that it would have been better to have happened. Hon. Members may say, "Let it happen." I am only stating the fact that it would have happened, and I believe it would have had very serious consequences for the reason that it would not have stopped there. If bloodshed had taken place, if there had been an outburst, I am absolutely certain in the pre-
sent state of this country the consequences would have been serious. The unrest in this country is far more marked than many hon. Members think. Do not make any mistake about it. In spite of all our efforts, in spite of all our advice, and in spite of the fact that the Unions' Executive are trying to deal with the situation, there is a spirit of unrest and dissatisfaction of a very serious kind existing in this country to-day. It is because I believe that it only requires a spark to start the flame, that I want to see the Government do the right thing. I have already said that I do not agree with direct action. I have said I deplore murder. I did not limit my condemnation of it to this House. I told the people in Ireland and in the South what were my views. I do not think there can be any excuse for it. I do not think for a moment that anyone can attempt to justify it. I know all too well that it makes it a real difficulty, for those who want to find a solution, when these horrible things take place from day to day. I fully recognise that, but to-night we are faced with this situation, that so far as the Irish trade unionists resident in England are concerned, they threaten to stop work to-morrow on this ground. They do not condone crime. They do not attempt to defend murder. What they say is: " We cannot stand by arid allow people to be arrested and punished without a charge being made against them or without trial." That is their case. Whether it is a good or bad one I do not for the moment want to argue. But I put it to the Home Secretary that they believe it. They know it takes place. Can you not clearly understand that they believe that the Government themselves are responsible for all the trouble in Ireland. I do hope that we will face the position in that spirit.
Supposing to-night the Home Secretary does not give way. Supposing a strike takes place. You will then have repeated again the same mistake, that it is only when force is used that the Government will give way. That is the exact situation. We are now speaking in advance of that, and before this strike really occurs; and I do submit that there is only one course open to the Home Secretary. It is to at least announce some change of policy in Ireland. Everyone admits that the present system has tailed; that all the coercion and repression
that has been introduced and all the military instead of preventing crime as a matter of fact has aggravated it, and the thing is going from bad to worse every day. It cannot be argued that the present system can be justified. I would ask the right hon. Gentleman to try a new system. I would ask him to give a better start, and start with the confidence of the Irish people. I believe a profound mistake is made in the Viceroy of England being made merely a party politician. I believe that we—

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: The hon. Member has perhaps not seen the terms of the notice of Motion. It does not deal with the matter of Irish government. It is confined on the one hand to Wormwood Scrubs, and on the other hand to Liverpool.

Mr. THOMAS: I agree, certainly, Mr. Whitley, and I accept your ruling, only I am trying to deal both with the cases of Ireland and of Wormwood Scrubs. I would conclude by saying that, in my judgment, the Home Secretary and the Government should devise some means whereby they can prevent this system of arrest on suspicion. Cases were brought to my notice. The right hon. Gentleman knows perfectly well that there are people who will deliberately go and give evidence to the military and the police to get people arrested simply because they have a grievance against them. That is common knowledge. On the other hand, I know all too well the shocking position that prevents people coming forward and giving evidence even in murder cases. That is a deplorable state of affairs. I believe, however, that crime begets crime. I believe that the military system now in operation in Ireland is a complete failure. I believe there will be no solution to the difficulty until we try another policy, and that is to trust the people. I believe there can be a better atmosphere created. I believe, in spite of the dark period, we can do something to save the situation now. I am delighted that, in spite of the seriousness of this Debate, no feeling of bitterness has entered into it. I hope it will continue in that spirit, and that some announcement will be made by the Home Secretary that will ease the whole difficulty.

Mr. BENNETT: I am under the disadvantage of having heard only a part of
the speech of the right hon. Gentleman, the Member for Peebles, but I think I understand the general outline of his scheme. That is, that some extra judicial arrangement shall be made by which charges against persons arrested on suspicion shall be inquired into. The speech of the right hon. Gentleman was much in contrast to a great many of the speeches that we have heard from the other side. I wish to speak with the utmost respect of them. But it seems to me they have been delivered in utter blindness of the atmosphere of which criminal trials are carried out in Ireland to-day. I am sure that hon. Members on the other side know that it is a difficult, an impossible thing, in these days to carry-out thoroughly any prosecution for murder which has either an agrarian or political aspect. The right hon. Gentleman recognised that fact in contradistinction to other hon. Members of the House. I think that in that he has done great service. I only want to make one suggestion and that is that the Government, in considering the suggestions made by the right hon. Gentleman, will step over, so to speak, to the India Office, and make some inquiry into the procedure which was adopted in Bengal a short time ago in order to revise the cases of a number of internees. A small Commission was appointed consisting of two High Court-Judges. One was a native Indian and a very eminent man. The Commission went through the dossiers in a large number of cases. They found that, except in a very small minority of cases, there was justification for the action which the Government have taken. I will not in the least degree anticipate the result of procedure of that kind in Ireland or London. It seems to me, however, to point a way in which a certain measure of relief can be given to public feeling in this matter. The Government owe it to themselves that they should look into the suggestion made by the right hon. Gentleman, because we do not know what may be their justification in any of the cases. There may be, there probably are, a large number of cases in which the Government have been justified in the interests of public peace and safety in ordering the detention of these men As it is now, it is purely a matter of administrative discretion. They might associate with their procedure a quasi-judicial tribunal—whether it be a committee as
suggested by the right hon. Gentleman, or whether it should be constituted from the High Court is a matter for the Government to consider. Speaking from these Benches, I feel it a matter of duty to support the right hon. Gentleman in the hope that something may be done, not only to do justice to those who may be interned without due warrant, but in justice to themselves, so that the Government may be able to give the public some assurance that they are acting under dire necessity.

Mr. PALMER: I think we have come to a pretty pass when the trade unions of this country use their power to threaten the Government in the conduct of the affairs of this country. I have listened with the greatest interest and respect to the speech of the hon. Member for St. Helens (Mr. Sexton)—the serious speech which he made to this House—and I do not think anyone will doubt his sincerity. I wish I could say as much in regard to the speech of the hon. Member for Central Hull (Lieut.-Commander Kenworthy). Although I am a bitter opponent of the system of arrest and imprisonment without trial which the Government are pursuing to-day, I refuse to believe that men are put into prison on the grounds which have been suggested.
I believe the Government are doing what they consider best in the interests of Ireland and this country, although I think they are making a great mistake. They are losing the support of British public opinion, and what is happening in Liverpool to-day is only a legacy of the weakness and indecision which has characterised their conduct in Ireland since the Easter Rebellion. [HON. MEMBERS: "The Ulster Rebellion!"] The Ulster Rebellion was a great mistake, but the Easter Rebellion, treated as it was by the Government of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Paisley (Mr. Asquith), was a crime. I heard the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Peebles (Sir D. Maclean) say that 20 years of resolute government did nothing for Ireland, but, in my opinion, it did a great deal, and it was broken down by the weakness and indecision of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Paisley.
We are face to face at this moment with a very serious situation. Liverpool is
threatened, and in London, at Wormwood Scrubs, we are having scenes so serious and, I believe, so sincere that the Government must take notice of them. In my view, the Government are always to be deflected from their purpose if the attitude of their opponents is only persistent and continuous enough. In my opinion, the right hon. Gentleman who is going to reply to this Debate will do a great service to the public feeling of this country if he will tell us exactly how these men are being treated in Wormwood Scrubs. We who believe in British justice feel that these men are not being fairly treated. No charge has been made against them; they have not been brought to trial, and do not know what these suspicions are upon which they have been arrested and imprisoned, and we are in entire ignorance as to the circumstances of their imprisonment.
The other night the Lord Privy Seal told us that they were under ameliorative treatment, and he said that they have always been under that treatment in the London prison, but they did not get it in Mountjoy until we had those terrible scenes. He also said that he would never give way and that they should die first, and 24 hours later the right hon. Gentleman had to admit that he was wrong and he had to give in. Let the Government tell the country frankly and fairly what attitude they are taking up in all these unfortunate cases. I have no sympathy with them of course, but if there is anything against them, let them be brought before a tribunal, as was suggested by the right hon. Member for Peebles, and let the public know the result of those inquiries. At the present moment the public opinion of this country and the opinion of men who like myself have been Unionists all their lives are turning from the Government and leaning, not toward Sinn Fein, but towards the men who are suffering what we regard as an unjust imprisonment at this moment. I ask the right hon. Gentleman to tell us frankly what position the Government are taking up, and if it is a position which they are likely to maintain. If we have a strike in Liverpool to-morrow and scenes of violence outside Wormwood Scrubs, we know perfectly well that rather than let one of these men die the Government will give in. That is the negation of government. We want the Government to have a policy,
announce it to the country, and stick to it. Let the Home Secretary tell us the position of the Government and state how these men are being treated. Are they detained under D.O.R.A.; are they simply interned, or are they being treated as convicted felons?

The SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. Shortt): I quite agree with what has been said by my right hon. Friend, that the hone of this Debate has left nothing at all to be desired. The subject is more than serious and grave, for it is a very painful one, and it has been approached with a due sense of all that those words mean. We have all, of course, an instinctive dislike of taking away a man's liberty unless he has had a fair trial by his peers, and has been convicted by them, but we must all appreciate that there are circumstances which are so strong and so coercive that steps must be taken, which are extremely distasteful, for the protection of the ordinary members of the community. We have had a picture of the serious effect of that as well as the serious unrest that will be caused if these men continue to be kept in prison, and if men are arrested and sent to prison without trial.
10.0 P.M.
There is, however, another side to that question. We have had a very eloquent and lurid picture of a raid related by Mr. Erskine-Childers in regard to a scene at which he could not have been present, and it must have been written on hearsay. May I remind the House that those statements are flatly denied by the people concerned? Therefore, when making a statement on the authority of a person who writes from hearsay, it is only fair to remind the House that the other side deny the accuracy of it. We have not heard to-night any picture drawn of a policeman, honourably doing his duty, found with hands tied behind his back, with bandages over his eyes, and shot dead with many bullets. These pictures, which can be told in far greater numbers than pictures of raids such as that related by the hon. and gallant Member, are left out of the story. We must consider them. We are bound to do so; we are bound to support those who are loyally doing their duty in Ireland in an endeavour to maintain law and order. There is another side of the question also. It does not take
many organised desperate men to terrorise a district. The average human beings who live in rural districts and in towns in Ireland are not organised. They do not organise themselves as citizen guards to protect themselves against desperadoes, and consequently as a very few desperate men have unfortunately got control of the Irish movement, and are in fact the top dogs of the movement, a very few of them can terrorise a whole neighbourhood. What is the result? The very state of things brought about by these few men themselves makes it absolutely impossible to bring anyone to trial, because it renders it absolutely impossible for anyone, except under sentence of death, to come forward and give evidence.
Are we to do nothing? Are we to allow these terrorist desperadoes who have got the whole country under their thumb, are we to allow them to constitute for their fellow desperadoes a charter of freedom of their own? Of course we cannot do anything of the sort. We are bound to face the facts as we find them. We are bound, therefore, in dealing with these men to realise two things. We have to do all we can to help peaceable members of society in Ireland. We must do all we can to uphold and protect those who are trying to do their duty. That is the position. What are we doing? May I at once say I am very grateful to my right hon. Friend for the suggestion he has thrown out? I appreciate, for I have had experience of it, the value of the work done by the committee to which he has referred, and I shall certainly propose what he suggests to my colleagues, and it will be considered. Whether it is possible or not I am not in a position now to say, but certainly I will bring it before my colleagues, and it will be considered. What is the procedure? Really, I do not think the House will ask me to waste its time by entering into many details. Of course, there is no question of acting on the mischievous and malicious statements of rival tradesmen or rival lovers.
Every attempt is made, as far as it is possible, to sift all information. The police have their dossiers. These are carefully scanned by those responsible for the deportations, and every endeavour is made to ensure that before deportation takes place the grounds for suspicion are sufficient to justify that action. It
is impossible, of course, to say you have evidence which will ensure conviction. You cannot have that always. You cannot have it, because you cannot get people to come forward. But at any rate you must have sufficient to justify action of that description in circumstances of peril and danger to the State. That is what the endeavour is. There was a time, of course, when I was myself responsible, and in those days I myself personally examined every case, in order to satisfy myself that there was a good primâ facie case against the person. It might, in case of trial, have been disproved, but that is true of every primâ facie case. There might have been an answer which I had not had an opportunity of seeing, but, so far as my information went, and using every means in my power to obtain information, I was invariably satisfied that there was a primâ facie case against the individual. That, I am assured, still goes on. I hope the hon. and gallant Member for Central Hull (Lieut.-Commander Kenworthy) does not convey to the public meetings, which he tells us he addresses, the same mistaken information as to the facts that he has put forward in this House tonight. There is no question of any Departmental Committee. If the hon. and gallant Gentleman had read the Regulation he would have seen that he was wrong. The Regulation itself provides that, where a man is deported under it, he should have a right to go before an Advisory Committee, and that Advisory Committee is to consist of independent persons, with, as its chairman, a gentleman of judicial training, who either holds' or has held high judicial office. The position to-day is that any one of these men who chooses to do so is entitled to say, "I am here on suspicion. I say there is no ground for suspicion against me, and I claim to be heard by an Advisory Committee, with a Judge of the High Court at its head." That is what they are entitled to do. It is perfectly true that they have never done it, but have always refused to acknowledge anything connected with this country or this country's decrees, but that is the right they possess to-day.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Are they allowed counsel?

Mr. SHORTT: Perhaps I am wrong in supposing my hon. and gallant Friend ought to have known it, but the Advisory Committee settle their own procedure always. There is no provision which binds them in any way. They can settle their own procedure in any way, and are entitled to do so. I have been asked about the treatment these men are receiving at Wormwood Scrubs—

Lord R. CECIL: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman, as I am very anxious that he shall not be misunderstood, who is responsible for the deportation? Is it the Lord Lieutenant, the Chief Secretary, or some judicial authority?

Mr. SHORTT: It was originally the Chief Secretary alone, but now it can be either the Lord Lieutenant or the Chief Secretary, whichever of them is in Ireland at the time. They are responsible, but of course they have always at their hand, or at any rate it was so in my time, people like the Lord Chancellor of Ireland, or Judges, who could be consulted upon the point. That was frequently done in my time, and I have no doubt it is now.

Captain REDMOND: Has the Commander-in-Chief of the Forces in Ireland anything to say in the matter?

Mr. SHORTT: I am not in a position to say he has never been asked in any particular case, but certainly no more than your people know anything about. With regard to the treatment they receive here, they have never been treated as if they were convicted prisoners, nor as people awaiting trial. The system of treatment was carefully settled a considerable time ago, by arrangement, and it has been consistently carried out, certainly in this country. I cannot speak for Ireland, but we are dealing now with Wormwood Scrubs. These men are not striking against their treatment at all. The hunger strike has nothing to do with treatment. It is not a hunger strike against treatment. The hunger strike is for immediate release or to be brought to trial. I have already shown that to talk of bringing these men to trial in the state of things in Ireland is to condemn the witnesses to death. If these men choose to injure themselves, the food is there if they choose to take it.

Mr. MacVEAGH: Is it not a fact that the Courts are sitting every day in Ireland, judges are still going to Assize, magistrates are convicting men day after day, and courts martial have sentenced hundreds of men to imprisonment? Why, therefore, are any men detained without charge and without trial?

Mr. SHORTT: No one knows better than the hon. Member that you can get a conviction where the police catch a man with a lot of bombs in his possession, and no outside witnesses or evidence is required. You can get lots of cases like that. Those cases are not deported. They are tried. If we could get any of these men in the same position, with no witness required by what was found on the man himself by the police, they would have been tried long ago.

Mr. MacVEAGH: Is it not a fact that where there is evidence you bring them before a court-martial, and where there is no evidence you intern them in Wormwood Scrubs?

Mr. SHORTT: That is really a most unfair way of misrepresenting what I have said.

Mr. MacVEAGH: Not what you have said, but the fact.

Mr. SHORTT: They have got exactly the treatment they were promised. They are not striking in any way with regard to their treatment. I cannot, of course, answer the questions about visitors and the particular lady who was mentioned, but all the prisoners are entitled to a certain number of visitors to see them. A room is set apart for them. Although they were described in this House as in a state of collapse and dying and so on, they have been strong enough to wreck a portion of the prison.

Mr. DEVLIN: That is the part that did not go on strike.

Mr. SHORTT: They have wrecked the room in which they used to receive visitors, but arrangements have been made with all speed, and I have been on the telephone with the Governor to see that it is done, to enable them to see their visitors again. They are shown, and I am satisfied rightly shown, all consideration that is possible, subject to this, that they must, at any cost, be prevented from going back and continuing their evil courses in Ireland. Subject to that any consideration that it is possible
to show them is shown them every day. I do not know whether I have replied to the whole of the questions which have been asked. The Debate, as I understood it, was to raise the question of the position of affairs in Liverpool. I do not complain, but as a matter of fact the Debate has really ranged all around the conditions in Ireland, and has left Liver-pool pretty severely alone. It is quite wrong and really unfair to suggest that this movement in Liverpool is a trade union movement. It is a purely local Irish movement. It is engineered by a few of the local Sinn Fein leaders, and if we gave way to that movement we should simply be saying we care more for the work at the docks at Liverpool than we care for the lives of peaceful law-abiding subjects in Ireland. We cannot do that. The Government certainly will not yield to any sort of threat from Liverpool or any kind of declaration. What has taken place at Wormwood Scrubs, so far as the police and the people in the prison are concerned, has been very much exaggerated in the Press. There has been, practically speaking, no disorder. Last night a number of young fellows, young London men, hearing people extol those whom they believe to be murderers, and hearing people denouncing this country and the Army, naturally showed their resentment, but it, did not amount to very much disturbance and, so far as I am led to understand, the Sinn Fein processionists got the worst of it. The prisoners inside were kept down on a lower stage where they could not see out of the windows, and could not make-any signals to their friends. I have no-doubt that when the rather stupid singing of the "Soldiers' Song" and "God Save Ireland" has to be sung to the bare walls of the prison, people will cease to go there.
I do not want to lead the House to suppose that either I personally or the Government minimise the gravity of the position. The Government appreciate as-well as anybody how distasteful it is to put men in prison without trial, and nothing but the sternest necessity would cause any Member of the Government to do such a thing. But necessity is a very stern taskmaster, and one is very often driven to do things which are extremely distasteful. The most that I can say is that we have done our best to keep any promises we have made to these prisoners
as to the conditions under which they are kept in prison. The one object that we have is to prevent them returning to Ireland, and to prevent them perpetrating that mischief which we have reason to suppose they would perpetrate if they were allowed to return. Subject to that, we will do our best to treat them with all reason and with all consideration, and, of course, we will do our best to look after their health so far as we are able to do it. While thanking my right hon. Friend for his suggestion, which I will bring before my colleagues, and I have no doubt they will consider it, I cannot hold out to-night any hope that the Government will refuse to take any step so long as they think that that step will conduce to the discovery of those who are perpetrating the atrocious murders in Ireland. We must attempt to discover the perpetrators of these murders, but so long as terrorism exists, so long as no man dare come forward and say that which he knows, so long as people can walk about in Ireland, well aware who perpetrated the crimes, and only too anxious to have these crimes stopped, but unable owing to the terrorism to come forward and give their evidence, and so long as we are unable to use with effect the ordinary processes of law, then we must take these extreme steps, and the terrorists themselves are the sole people who are to blame for that stern necessity.

Mr. DEVLIN: I should have been glad not to have intervened in this discussion, but I cannot allow the speech of the right hon. Gentleman to pass without some reply. I am sick to death listening to the speeches of right hon. Gentlemen on the situation in Ireland. They talk about crime. They have not arrested a criminal yet. They have only arrested people who are not criminals. I listened with very great interest to the speech of the Noble Lord (Lord R. Cecil) the other day. He said:
Since the 1st January, 1919, crime has steadily increased. If the figures had been shown month by month it would be more clear that serious crime had increased very rapidly, and still more rapidly from the date of the announcement by the Prime Minister of the Home Rule Bill.
I do not go so far as the Noble Lord and say that the introduction of the Home Rule Bill has been responsible for the increase of crime, though I do confess that it is enough to make people in Ireland
very angry. But what is really the deduction I draw, which I have no doubt he draws, and which every intelligent Member of this House must draw when we are told that crime and outrages in Ireland have been on the increase in Ireland to an abnormal degree during the last 12 months. It is that they have grown concurrently with the policy of the administration in Ireland. Where I join issue with them is that they say that the repression is to put down crime, and I say that the repression has created crime.
I have followed this horrible situation through all its phases during the last two years. Every Irishman who loves his country, who desires freedom and the order that should spring from freedom, must feel the tragedy of the whole situation. Certainly we do. Every decent-minded Irishman does. Every Irishman deplores it, but, do not stand there at that table or sit on those benches with white robes of innocence around you. You should rather, if you went back on your record, stand there in penitential sheets—if I were to quote some of the speeches which you gentlemen made in the earlier periods of your career. Murder was not as unpopular-then as it is now. Incitements to murder, even in this House, roused the ringing cheers of some of the indignant gentlemen who are sitting on that bench to-night, listening with tearful souls to these stories of incitement to murder in Ireland. But I do not propose to go into that. What I say is this—and I challenge any Member of the House to contradict me—at the time when your Government became most resolute there were no murders in Ireland at all. Will the right hon. Gentleman deny that? Is there anybody representing the Irish Office here? Where is Lord French? Where is the Chief Secretary? There is the Attorney-General, the spokesman of law and the advocate of order. Will he contradict the statement, which I now deliberately make, that murder, agrarian and political outrage were practically unknown 18 months or two years ago, and our country was absolutely free from assassination and outrage, because you would be satisfied now, I believe, with any form of articulate political discontent if it were free from these outrages?
There was no outrage in the country at all until you set up at the end of the War against militarism in Europe a
military machine in Ireland. Some of the men at the head of the military machine were out in France. They came home, and having failed in making war against militarism on the fields of Flanders and France, they came home to have what Lord Halsbury would have called "some sort of war line." And they are going to be just as successful and triumphant in their war in Ireland as they were in their War in France. So the little war commenced. Peaceful villages were invaded; law-abiding people's homes were searched in the dead of night; women were driven from their beds at midnight; children were taken to prison without any charge being made against them; football matches were proclaimed; Gaelic songs were treason; sports were anathema; and there was neither order nor freedom in any shape or form allowed in the country. And then you expected a people of high spirit to sit silently down and bear all this! Next you proceeded to round-up everyone whom you suspected or someone else suspected of something suspicious, and dragged them either to some prison in Belfast or here in England; and, again, you thought that these high-spirited people would remain silent. Having broken up the constitutional movement in Ireland, having driven 70 of my colleagues out of this House because we stood by you in your hour of Imperial emergency—[HON. MEMBERS: "No" and "Yes"]—I say yes. That is why I hate this Government more than the Sinn Feiners hate it. It is because of the sense of wrong, the sense of great service rendered so ill-requited. That is what makes this remnant, the miserable remnant of us left here—

Mr. KENNEDY JONES: Not miserable.

Mr. DEVLIN: No, we are not miserable, but that is what we were called last night. At all events, I will not discuss that aspect of the matter. Seventy of us were driven from this House, our influence gone, constitutional opinion suppressed. What did you get as a result? Seventy Sinn Feiners elected in our stead. Most of those men, I believe, would have exercised a beneficent influence in preventing these outrages. You drove us out of Parliament because we helped you, and you drove them into gaol because they opposed you. I never
can be patient when I think—not the disposition, but of the ineptitude and impossibility of getting men who are made responsible for the government of Ireland to understand anything of that country—their ignorance, their lack of vision and imagination, their failure to grasp even the most fundamental political-issue, their incapacity to understand the nature of the Irish people, to grapple with a single Irish problem. If Englishmen sent over to Ireland and those who sit on the Government benches, whether in one-Government or in another, were selected for the very reason that they were bound to mishandle the situation, they could not be more triumphantly successful. So when we sit here, and listen to the speeches of right hon. Gentlemen about the horrible conditions which exist in Ireland, I say that every evil which has fallen on the country and every discredit belongs to your Government and adminitration of the country; every scar that blots the fair fame of your Empire, you put it there—you are responsible for everything that has occurred in Ireland. You are responsible for the murders of policemen in Ireland—absolutely responsible, and I charge you with it.
I come to the question of what is to be done with these prisoners. I have no hesitation in saying what ought to be done—they ought to be released. They are either guilty or not guilty of some offence. They themselves do not know the offence with which they are charged, or for which they are in prison. They may be innocent or they may be guilty, but because by some tortuous process you may find one out of every twenty you suspect of doing something, or who may do something, you keep all the rest in gaol. Is that British justice; is that your conception of the spirit that ought to make the British name honoured throughout the world? These men are political opponents of mine. I have no doubt, if they ceased their activities in opposition to you, they would be all the better equipped to manifest their active opposition to us; but I am for justice to Ireland as well as for justice to England. If men are ill-treated, and are put in gaol without a charge against them, then I say that is a disgrace to the English name, and no decent Englishman ought to stand it. Therefore I say these men ought to be liberated. I want to go further. I
do not believe you could justify any charge against ninety-five per cent. of these men. As an hon. Friend reminds me, the right hon. Gentleman has talked a great deal about the Advisory Committee which was -appointed after the rebellion, and said that not one of those men who were rounded up after the rebellion would have been arrested but that there was prima facie evidence that he was guilty of some offence. If there was that prima facie evidence, the Advisory Committee would have sent them back to prison, but instead of that they released nearly three-fourths of them. Therefore, there was no prima facie evidence against them. The Home Secretary need not laugh. The Advisory Committee was made up of Judges, and he need not laugh at Judges; he may be a Judge himself some day. If I in Ireland laughed at a Judge, I should get six months. The right hon. Gentleman, a potential Judge, engages in mild hilarity with the Leader of his party. It only shows you the difference in the point of view on all these questions between Englishmen and Irishmen.
The crime these men have committed is that they are Republicans. I do not think I am a Republican myself. I have a very curious view on all these questions. I believe that republics are splendid things in some countries, and bad things in other countries. I am a "believer in the might and strength and glory of the Republic of America I have the utmost reverence and affection for the great Republic of France. But I know of other republics which are not very desirable. I have a great respect for countries governed by monarchies. There are countries in Europe as well governed under the monarchial system as republics, and there are countries like England that are not well governed—not well governed so far as Ireland is concerned; but I am too much of a Home Ruler to interfere in your internal affairs. Therefore I do not think it ought to be a crime to preach Republicanism. It is not a crime in England. If I were an Englishman I would be perfectly satisfied with the Monarchy in this country, but yet I can go into Hyde Park any Sunday and hear Republicanism advocated. When I am tired of listening to speeches here, and when I want to hear a good oration, I go to Hyde Park, not that the speeches are intellectually very
fine, but they spring from sincere and generous hearts, and that is a form of oratory I am not accustomed to here. Therefore I go to Hyde Park, and there I can hear powerful phillippies delivered against monarchy. Nobody interferes with them. They are left alone. They are not sent to Wormwood Scrubs. Lord French is not summoned over from Ireland with armoured cars. John Hodge's house is not searched, and his wife is not dragged out of bed at midnight. You do not the following day say that because John Hodge made a Republican speech in Hyde Park, you must not allow sports in the neighbourhood in which he lives. Nothing of that sort occurs. But because these men in Ireland are Republicans and preach Republicanism, winch they have a perfect right to do, or at all events, as good a right as orators in Hyde Park, you subject a whole nation to this form of outrageous military tyranny. If I were a strong man like the Leader of the House, or like the series of strong men who sit beside him, I would say, "Very well, let us go on with it. We will persist in it, and carry it through."
Instead of this thing succeeding in the purpose and end which you have in view, it has precisely the opposite effect. You intensify national feeling, you create antagonism, you foster a more bitter hatred among the people, and you have practically made everyone in Ireland a Sinn Feiner. I am not so sure that it is not a great mistake to think that everyone who supports Sinn Fein is in favour of an Irish Republic. The real fact is that Sinn Fein is largely made up of a series of elements in the national life of the country or, shall I say, of discontents. There is no room in Ireland for a moderate man. That is why the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for the Duncairn Division (Sir E. Carson) refuses even now to be moderate. I am unsuccessful as a politician, because I can never organise a rebellion. Let any moderate man come here, and he might as well beat the air as give advice as to the right thing to do. No matter what he knows about the country, nobody believes him. You have either to hit John Bull on the head to make him understand, or you have to hold a rifle at the head of a Cabinet Minister to make him appreciate the situation. On top of it all we are offered, as a final solution of the Irish problem, what some merry humorist in
this House has called a Home Rule Bill. If I am asked what blessings the prospect of this magnificent measure has brought to Ireland, I will quote the speech of the Noble Lord the Member for Hitchin (Lord R. Cecil), who says that assassinations have increased since the Bill was introduced. Out of Bedlam was there ever any situation like this, in which, in order to meet a position of grave national importance, they introduce a Bill to solve the Irish difficulty, to end Irish discontent, to satisfy the passion of humanity and of democracy all the world over, a Bill which the Home Secretary declared at a meeting of his constituents would rouse the ire and indignation of every man, woman, and child in Ireland? You do not need a Coalition Liberal to ooze wisdom of that sort. To satisfy the national aspirations of a people, to create contentment where there was discontent, loyalty where there was disloyalty, order where there was disorder, goodwill and friendly feeling and brotherhood throughout the wide world, you introduce a Bill which the declared spokesman of the Government states is a Bill that will cause the indignation of every man, woman, and child in Ireland.
If the Government are the Government I take them to be, I think the best thing to do is for them to get out of the country altogether. There would be as much order in Ireland if the Government was not there as there is now when they are. [HON. MEMBERS: More.] Yes, but I am an Irishman, and I do not exaggerate. There is no co-ordination in your Dublin Castle Department, there is no unity of view between your administrators. I had a great many altercations with the Home Secretary, when he was Chief Secretary, which I have sometimes regretted since, because I do not think he is half so cruel as he attempts to appear to be, and I took him at his face value. Every Englishman who goes to Ireland always comes to the House on his first appearance as Chief Secretary, and tries to look as near like Cromwell as possible. Naturally, the right hon. Gentleman does not look like Cromwell. I never saw our deceased and departed friend, but I thought, after I had heard one or two of the right hon. Gentlemen's speeches, that he was really a tyrant. He was nothing of the sort; he was a good man
struggling with Lord French. When he went to the Home Office, Lord French stayed in Ireland, and the Leader of the House says Ireland was never in as bad a position for 700 years. I was waiting for all the English Tories to shout "Hip, hip, hooray!" Really, the position, if it were not so tragic, would be absolutely grotesque. The end of it is now that, having created discontent in Ireland, arrested countless men, imprisoned children, searched homes, brought armoured cars and large processions of military into every peaceful village in the country, having created hatred against you, the end of it is that the hatreds are being transferred from Ireland over here. Your whole trade is to be dislocated, a bad spirit is to be brought into the trade union movement, the forces of constitutionalism in the Labour movement are to be up against an attempt at direct action, not upon their own concerns, but upon the concerns of Ireland; and you have disturbed the Republic of America by bringing the poison of your Irish policy into the electoral conflicts that are taking place there. [Laughter.] I do not see what there is to laugh at. If it is not true, your English newspaper correspondents in Washington are all liars, and no English newspaper correspondent in America is a liar. You have a similar condition of things in Australia and in Canada, and Englishmen had better realise and recognise what the real Irish question is. It is bigger than Ireland. It is bigger than England. It is bigger than these islands. It permeates and creeps into every branch of public utility in every land where the English language is spoken.
Therefore my advice to the right hon. Gentleman would be this. Release these Sinn Fein prisoners. Let them out, not only in Ireland, but in England. Let that be a commencement. The minute you stop these oppressive measures, assassination, in my opinion, will cease. You have driven discontent beneath the surface. When Mr. Parnell was put in gaol by Mr. Gladstone, in 1882, he was spending half his time in trying to save a crushed and almost dying peasantry from cruel wrongs—what the Lord President of the Council declared to be the most iniquitous land system in the world. When Mr. Parnell was trying to destroy that system and trying, as we have been, to
keep the agitation on constitutional lines, he was thrown into gaol. He said, "You put me in prison, but Captain Boycott will get busy when I am there." If public opinion is wrong, the people are not fools. They will recognise it. If it is right, it ought to be an enduring force. The result of the oppression of opinion is a continuance of these deplorable incidents, of which everyone is ashamed. Murder and assassination will go on. There is no use in blinking the fact that it will go on. If you continue your raids, the people will become more bitter. Every method you have tried will fail. Will it be denied now that it has failed? Will it be denied from those benches? The Leader of the House the other night said—I wish he had realised it two years ago—no army, no regiment and no series of regiments can repress a people or solve the Irish question. If armies cannot settle it, do you think a few armoured cars, or aeroplanes, or tanks, or any of those machines which you have used in trying to repress it in the past, can settle it? Get back, I say, to the recognition of the right of popular opinion to be expressed. The largest freedom and good institutions are safer where public opinion is most freely and articulately expressed. Get back to that again, and when you have got back to that, when normality comes to the nation and has come to you—which is equally important —then settle down to think out the solution of this Irish problem, not upon lines conceived by political expediency or Parliamentary dodges, balancing and trying to satisfy conflicting elements, but by some great and bold and generous measure of freedom that will not only satisfy the aspirations of the Irish people themselves, but will touch the imagination of the whole English-speaking world that is looking with longing eyes to the close of this age-long and tragic story of the relationship between these countries.

Mr. BILLING: Let me endeavour before the Debate is over to bring back the mind of the Home Secretary to the Motion. That was whether or not it was advisable, or expedient, to release these prisoners. My knowledge of the Irish situation is neither greater nor less than that of the majority of hon. Members—gathered as to one half from what we read in the newspapers, and the other half from the two very extreme points of
view that we have listened to in this House. Of one thing there is no possible doubt—what the Government themselves intend to do. I do not wish to say that the Leader of the House misled us in any way the other night when he said the Government stand or fall by the retention of certain prisoners. To-night the Home Secretary has told the House that the Government intend to stand or fall by the retention of these men in Wormwood Scrubs. If I might offer a little advice to the Government, it is this. Do not make these statements unless you intend to stand by them; otherwise you create the very crisis from which you think your friends are going to save you. The Irish opinion is this: that provided they kick up sufficient disturbance they will get what they want, and the prisoners will be released. There are points of view to be considered apart from that of the Irish question. The Irish situation has been, as the Motion proves, gradually brought into the industrial problems of our country, to add to their confusion. It is understood that unless these prisoners are released the dockers at Liverpool and other ports, who are also members of trade organisations, will cease work. Most probably there will be strikes in consequence, and there will also be a continuance of hunger-striking. In respect of this latter, does the Government intend to allow these men to die in Wormwood Scrubs? If they do, that is their policy. If they do not intend to allow them to die, I wish the Government would here and now take this opportunity of reconsidering their decision. It is, indeed, a paradox that there is sitting on the Treasury Bench now one of the members of the Liberal party who has been served by the Irish party for ten years faithfully and well, and they have gone blindly into the lobbies in support of the Government, which was leading them blindfold to destruction, without giving this country or any other the least consideration. The Liberal party was going to liberate Ireland at all costs. It was the Irish party that led us blindfolded into the War from which we have victoriously emerged. We all hold strong opinions about that. We all know what created the Ulster and other incidents when the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Paisley (Mr. Asquith) was responsible. We know that it was the right hon.
Gentleman's weakness on one occasion in connection with the importation of arms into Ulster that is mainly responsible for the whole position in Ireland to-day. I appeal to the Government not to continue a policy of expediency in Ireland. The Irish people have been tricked by every political manœuvre which this House can put into operation, and they have given up any hope of attaining their end by political methods, because it is essential that there should be mutual trust, whether in honour or dishonour.
The Irish people have been exploited for ten years, and they feel that it is no use trusting the House of Commons to give them what they want by constitutional means. Now it is a question whether the Government intend to continue to rule Ireland by expediency, by

means of threats, to be given way to at the last moment. There are supporters of the Government and others who fear that the weak administration of the Government is responsible for our main trouble there, just as our industrial troubles are due to the weakness of the Government, which always succumbs to pressure. Does the Government intend to hold to their policy if we have a general strike or if these hunger strikers die in prison, or does the Government intend to capitulate? If so, let them do it now, instead of doing it in a week's time in disgrace.

Question put, "That this House do now adjourn."

The House divided: Ayes, 52; Noes, 147.

Division No. 96.]
AYES.
[11.0 p.m.


Acland, Rt. Hon. F. D.
Harbison, Thomas James S.
Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)


Barnes, Major H. (Newcastle, E.)
Hirst, G. H.
Rose, Frank H.


Benn, Captain Wedgwood (Leith)
Irving, Dan
Sexton, James


Billing, Noel Pemberton-
Jones, J. J. (West Ham, Silvertown)
Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)


Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.
Jones, William Kennedy (Hornsey)
Spencer, George A.


Bromfield, William
Kenworthy, Lieut.-Commander J. M.
Swan, J. E.


Cape, Thomas
Kenyon, Barnet
Thomson, T. (Middlesbrough, West)


Carter, W. (Nottingham, Mansfield)
Lawson, John J.
Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton, E.)


Casey, T. W.
Lunn, William
Walsh, Stephen (Lancaster, I nee)


Davies, A. (Lancaster, Clitheroe)
Lyle-Samuel, Alexander
Waterson, A. E.


Davison, J. E. (Smethwick)
MacVeagh, Jeremiah
Williams, Aneurin (Durham, Consett)


Devlin, Joseph
Mills, John Edmund
Williams, Col. P. (Middlesbrough, E.)


Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)
Morgan, Major D. Watts
Wilson, W. Tyson (Westhoughton)


Entwistle, Major C. F.
Murray, Dr. D. (Inverness and Ross)
Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)


Finney, Samuel
Myers, Thomas



Galbraith, Samuel
Newbould, Alfred Ernest
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Gould, James C.
O'Grady, Captain James
Mr. T. P. O'Connor and Mr. T. Griffiths.


Grundy, T. W.
Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)



Hallas, Eldred
Redmond, Captain William Archer



NOES.


Agg-Gardner, Sir James Tynte
Davidson, Major-General Sir J. H.
Hanna, George Boyle


Allen, Lieut.-Colonel William James
Davies, Sir David Sanders (Denbigh)
Hennessy, Major J. R. G.


Archer-Shee, Lieut.-Colonel Martin
Davies, Thomas (Cirencester)
Henry, Denis S. (Londonderry, S.)


Astor, Viscountess
Davies, Sir William H. (Bristol, S.)
Herbert, Dennis (Hertford, Watford)


Atkey, A. R.
Davison, Sir W. H. (Kensington, S.)
Hilder, Lieut.-Colonel Frank


Baird, John Lawrence
Dawes, James Arthur
Hinds, John


Balfour, George (Hampstead)
Dixon, Captain Herbert
Holbrook, Sir Arthur Richard


Barlow, Sir Montague
Doyle, N. Grattan
Hope, James F. (Sheffield, Central)


Barnett, Major R. W.
Edge, Captain William
Hope, Lt.-Col. Sir J. A. (Midlothian)


Barnston, Major Harry
Edwards, Major J. (Aberavon)
Hope, J. D. (Berwick & Haddington)


Barrie, Charles Coupar
Elliot, Capt. Walter E. (Lanark)
Jameson, J. Gordon


Barrie, Hugh Thorn (Lon'derry, N.)
Eyres-Monsell, Commander B. M.
Jephcott, A. R.


Betterton, Henry B.
Falcon, Captain Michael
Jodreil, Neville Paul


Birchall, Major J. Dearman
Fildes, Henry
Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)


Borwick, Major G. O.
Fisher, Rt. Hon. Herbert A. L.
Kidd, James


Bowyer, Captain G. E. W.
Foxcroft, Captain Charles Talbot
Law, Rt. Hon. A. B. (Glasgow, C.)


Breese, Major Charles E.
Fraser, Major Sir Keith
Lewis, Rt. Hon. J. H. (Univ., Wales)


Britton, G. B.
Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.
Lewis, T. A. (Glam., Pontypridd)


Bruton, Sir James
Gange, E. Stanley
Lindsay, William Arthur


Buckley, Lieut.-Colonel A.
Gardiner, James
Lloyd-Greame, Major P.


Burn, Col. C R. (Devon, Torquay)
Gibbs, Colonel George Abraham
Lort-Williams, J.


Campbell, J. D. G.
Gilmour, Lieut.-Colonel John
Loseby, Captain C. E.


Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward H.
Glyn, Major Ralph
Lynn, R. J.


Cecil, Rt. Hon. Evelyn (Birm., Aston)
Green, Albert (Derby)
McLaren, Robert (Lanark, Northern)


Cecil, Rt. Hon. Lord H. (Ox. Univ.)
Green, Joseph F. (Leicester, W.)
M'Lean, Lieut.-Col. Charles W. W.


Cecil, Rt. Hon. Lord R. (Hitchin)
Greenwood, William (Stockport)
Macleod, J. Mackintosh


Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston S.
Greig, Colonel James William
Macmaster, Donald


Cockerill, Brigadier-General G. K.
Gritten, W. G. Howard
McNeill, Ronald (Kent, Canterbury)


Colvin, Brig.-General Richard Beale
Hacking, Captain Douglas H.
Macquisten, F. A.


Coote, William (Tyrone, South)
Hailwood, Augustine
Malone, Major P. B. (Tottenham, S.)


Craik, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry
Hamilton, Major C. G. C.
Matthews, David


Moles, Thomas
Raw, Lieutenant-Colonel N.
Sturrock, J. Leng


Molson, Major John Elsdale
Reid, D. D.
Sugden, W. H.


Montagu, Rt. Hon. E. S.
Remer, J. R.
Sutherland, Sir William


Moreing, Captain Algernon H.
Robinson, S. (Brecon and Radnor)
Thomas-Stanford, Charles


Morrison, Hugh
Robinson, Sir T. (Lancs., Stretford)
Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South)


Munro, Rt. Hon. Robert
Rogers, Sir Hallewell
Thomson, Sir W. Mitchell- (Maryhill)


Murchison, C. K.
Roundell, Colonel R. F.
Waddington, R.


Murray, Major William (Dumfries)
Rutherford, Sir W. W. (Edge Hill)
Weston, Colonel John W.


Nail, Major Joseph
Sanders, Colonel Sir Robert A.
Wheler, Major Granville C. H.


Neal, Arthur
Sassoon, Sir Philip Albert Gustave D.
Whitla, Sir William


Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)
Seddon, J. A.
Williams, Lt.-Com. C. (Tavistock)


Parry, Lieut.-Colonel Thomas Henry
Shaw, William T. (Forfar)
Winterton, Major Earl


Pease, Rt. Hon. Herbert Pike
Shortt, Rt. Hon E. (N'castle-on-T.)
Wood, Sir J. (Stalybridge and Hyde)


Pennefather, De Fonblanque
Smith, Sir Allan M. (Croydon, South)
Worsfold, Dr. T. Cato


Philipps, Sir Owen C. (Chester, City)
Smith, Harold (Warrington)
Young, Lieut.-Com. E. H. (Norwich)


Pollock, Sir Ernest M.
Sprot, Colonel Sir Alexander
Young, W. (Perth & Kinross, Perth)


Purchase, H. G.
Stanley, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. G. F.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Raeburn, Sir William H.
Stanton, Charles B.
Lord E. Talbot and Mr. James Parker.


Rankin, Captain James S.
Stewart, Gershom



Bill read a Second time, and committed to a Standing Committee.

HEALTH RESORTS AND WATERING PLACES BILL.

The remaining Orders were read, and postponed.

ADJOURNMENT.—Resolved, "That this House do now adjourn."—[Lieut.-Colonel Sir R. Sanders.]

Adjourned accordingly at Eight Minutes after Eleven of the Clock.